Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:45:42 -0400 (EDT) | From | Justin Piszcz <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |