lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng v2.17 (stable)
On 01/11/2010 12:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>> Uhm, that's just plain wrong.
>>
>> It doesn't matter if there is a "special mapping layer" -- if you're
>> crossing multiple erase blocks you're still having more churn in
>> your flash translation layer, with more wear on the device, and
>> lower performance than if you didn't.
>
> Eraseblocks really should not matter. It is not as if each logical
> sector belongs to one eraseblock....
>
> (OTOH, maybe the eraseblock *groups* that are basis for wear-leveling
> do, or maybe firmware is doing something really really strange.)
> Pavel

Maybe they "should not" matter, but they *do* matter. In most existing
FTLs, each logical sector *does* belong to one erase block, although
which particular erase block that is of course moves around. However,
the invariant that matters though -- and the reason alignment matters --
is that for most FTLs, the *offset* of any particular logical sector
within the erase block it currently belongs to is invariant, i.e. the
FTL operates on physical sectors which are the same size as the erase
blocks.

-hpa


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-12 00:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans