[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: JFFS2: powerfailtesting again
good point on file names - for historical reasons, we are
using dos lenght file names, did not try with (very) long names!
that could dramatically increase overhead, on JFFS1 anyway (kinda
re Vpp, are you saying that the low batter situation will cause
constant failures because each reboot will cause a flash write and
hence another failure? If so, might not be so bad - if you are
line powered, the it's not likely you'd get so many power failures
happening in this worse-case scenario. If you are battery powered,
you will normally have low battery detection that can be set to
prevent this kind of thing from happening (modern battery management
will prevent the unit from running the charge down below a certain
level to maximize battery life.
From: David Woodhouse [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 11:39 PM
To: Lance Nakamura
Cc: 'Vladimir Serov'; email@example.com
Subject: Re: JFFS2: powerfailtesting again
> we arrived at roughly 2.5 sectors for JFFS1 empircally - it's hard
> to tell from the documentation what it really needs to be beyond 2,
> and agree it is not something easy to prove formally.
It's not bounded if you rename files to larger names. Actually a horrible
thought occurred to me on the way into the office this morning.
The Linux flash drivers assert Vpp just before writing to the flash.
Consider a situation where you have a low battery, and few milliseconds after
you assert Vpp, the box dies. It reboots OK, right up to the time when it
next asserts Vpp.
JFFS2 was asserting Vpp because it was writing to the flash. And it managed
to write something (even one bit) before it died.
Watch it eat _all_ your reserved free space.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org