lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.38: XFS/USB/HW issue, or failing USB stick?


On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tim Soderstrom wrote:

>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can write to just about the entire USB stick, with no errors:
>>
>> atom:~# df -h
>> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>> /dev/sda2 5.8G 1.5G 4.3G 26% /
>> tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /lib/init/rw
>> udev 10M 140K 9.9M 2% /dev
>> tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /dev/shm
>> atom:~# cd /
>> atom:/# ls
>> bin cdrom etc lib media nfs proc sbin srv tmp var
>> boot dev home lib64 mnt opt root selinux sys usr
>> atom:/# dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=1M count=4000
>> 4000+0 records in
>> 4000+0 records out
>> 4194304000 bytes (4.2 GB) copied, 135.536 s, 30.9 MB/s
>> atom:/# df -h
>> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>> /dev/sda2 5.8G 5.4G 350M 95% /
>> tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /lib/init/rw
>> udev 10M 140K 9.9M 2% /dev
>> tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /dev/shm
>> atom:/# rm bigfile
>>
>> However, after some amount of time, the errors occur below, is this USB
>> stick failing? Since it has no SMART, is there any other way to verify
>> the 'health' of a USB stick?
>
> What prompted you to go with XFS over, say, ext2? The journal will generally cause quite a bit more writes onto your USB device. I use ext2 on my CF card in my NAS for that reason (the spinning media is on XFS of course). I know that's not an answer to your problem but thought I would add it as a suggestion :)
>

Hi,

Just habit I suppose.. (XFS). Looks like EXT2 is the correct solution here,
or ext4 w/nojournal (if Google's patch is in the kernel). I have to read
the lwn.net article though.

Justin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-18 18:49    [W:0.051 / U:24.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site