From manningc2@actrix.gen.nz Thu May 28 23:52:03 2009 Received: from smtp.firstline.co.nz ([203.167.210.162] helo=firstline.co.nz) by stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1M9oS1-0006vb-IB for yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk; Thu, 28 May 2009 23:52:03 +0100 Received: (qmail 26502 invoked by uid 453); 28 May 2009 22:51:40 -0000 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on firstline.co.nz Received: from Unknown (HELO linux-dual-head.local) (10.14.210.25) by firstline.co.nz (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 May 2009 10:51:40 +1200 From: Charles Manning To: yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:51:39 +1200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <4A1EBBD1.4090803@somanetworks.com> <200905290938.56581.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> <4A1F0EE7.8050509@somanetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <4A1F0EE7.8050509@somanetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200905291051.39134.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 203.167.210.162 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: manningc2@actrix.gen.nz X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk) Subject: Re: [Yaffs] failed erases causing block retirement X-BeenThere: yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of YAFFS NAND flash filesystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 22:52:03 -0000 On Friday 29 May 2009 10:23:35 Ben Gamsa wrote: > Charles Manning wrote: > > It is safe to retry erases from a yaffs perspective, but if blocks are > > really failing erases (ie. not just a driver issue) I would be a bit > > concerned as to their health and would not want to reuse those blocks. > > Right, that was my concern too. I guess what I wasn't sure of is > whether an erase failure is almost always (barring driver issues) an > indication of a bad block, or whether, like writes, it can be a > temporary glitch for which retries make sense. Since in my case it > turned out to be a driver issue, I still don't know the answer to this > question, but it is now less pressing. It very much depends on flash technology, but if you're getting write and erase errors I'd say you're typically playing with fire to keep using them. -- CHarles