Umm, perhaps I'm naive, but I thought (hoped) that wear-leveling already
re-used existing blocks, at least hardware based ones, or is that too
expensive? It's seems the only sane way to have long term guaranteed
reliability, by moving content on little written blocks to elsewhere and
using those blocks for frequent writes too. Sure, writing n blocks means
you need to read n blocks and write 2n blocks, but all blocks would be
written the same number of times in the end. This shuffling around doesn't
have to happen all the time though.
Posted Aug 14, 2008 11:24 UTC (Thu) by willy (subscriber, #9762)
[Link]
You're correct that wear-levelling reuses existing blocks. This is about telling the
flash-based device which blocks aren't used any more and hence don't need to be copied. The
filesystem knows when a block isn't used any more, it just needs a way to tell the flash
device.
Block layer discard requests
Posted Aug 14, 2008 14:38 UTC (Thu) by i3839 (guest, #31386)
[Link]