Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757325Ab1CRRqA (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:46:00 -0400 Received: from lucidpixels.com ([75.144.35.66]:33455 "EHLO lucidpixels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757286Ab1CRRpn (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:45:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:45:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Justin Piszcz To: Tim Soderstrom cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Piszcz Subject: Re: 2.6.38: XFS/USB/HW issue, or failing USB stick? In-Reply-To: <30463798-7ACB-4248-8CDC-CEFCB6ABC0BE@moocowproductions.org> Message-ID: References: <30463798-7ACB-4248-8CDC-CEFCB6ABC0BE@moocowproductions.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2051 Lines: 52 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/