|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Flash and small modifications

Flash and small modifications

Posted Apr 6, 2012 22:08 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313)
In reply to: Flash and small modifications by jzbiciak
Parent article: 2012 Linux Storage, Filesystem, and Memory Management Summit - Day 2

I was thinking of taking the easy way out and just saying "use the most recent checksum" rather than doing any fancy chaining of the checksums togeather.

But overall I think that we are talking basically the same thing.

I first ran into this sort of concept many years ago when the digital recording first hit the consumer market (if you can remember when the first music Christmas cards and similar appeared, that timeframe). The way those recorders worked was that they used a EEPROM chip and recorded an analog value (~8 bits worth) in each bit of the EEPROM by hitting it with a smaller than spec programming charge repeatedly until the stored value matched the desired analog value. When doing this program you would 'program' the chip with 00000001 until the first bit got to the desired value, then program it with 00000010 until the second bit got to the desired value, etc. you would never be sending a programming signal to a bit that you already had set.

multi-level flash uses a similar trick to store 4 levels of signal per cell, it calls these '00' '01' '10' '11' in the digital world, so the 'partial modification' that I am talking about would require support from the flash chipset to allow it to not try to reprogram a cell that's already been set, but that is a pretty trivial thing to do.


to post comments

Flash and small modifications

Posted Apr 6, 2012 22:46 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (guest, #5246) [Link] (1 responses)

Where I think the overlaid CRCs might become more interesting is when the CRC is supposed to cover a fairly large block (say 64K) but you're rewriting a much smaller piece (say 4K) with a minor update. If you don't have the other pieces handy, you can compute your CRC update on just the piece you have, rather than having to go read them.

Flash and small modifications

Posted Apr 6, 2012 23:02 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

true, but if you think of the fact that it's only the on-device controller that would have to re-read the data, I don't think it really matters, the speed that it can re-read the raw data is fast enough that I really don't expect it to be a bottleneck.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds