-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
UBI vs NO-UBI #9
Comments
|
A few examples of flash devices which lack dedicated wear leveling hardware controllers are micro/SD, CompactFlash, USB flash drives, eMMC modules. These "hot blocks" or zones that dangowrt mentioned will wear out prematurely due to the constant re-writing. In modern SSDs and NVMes you hear of the term TRIM or garbage collection, the controller can also reallocate dead zones into unprovisioned areas which is not always transparent to the operating system. In embedded devices (like routers) it's less common to see wear leveling due to costs of scale. In those instances it can be mitigated through software with a copy on write filesystem or directly handled in OS drivers. In the future we should hope all OpenWRT devices utilize UBI. |
All of those devices have wear levelling. The raw NOR or NAND flash in most routers does not and this needs to be done through software. |
They majorly utilize software based wear leveling on the OS. There is few exceptions I've seen for SD/mSD/eMMC that are industrial non consumer. For flashdrives "wear leveling" is not always equal and generally dynamic type. I do see Corsair referenced that their older voyager used static while the rest of their devices are using dynamic type. It doesn't look common place or advertised in the consumer space. |
Software wear levelling is almost never used with such devices such as SD, eMMC, USB flash. They are generally used with file systems such as FAT or ext4 and cannot assume that the OS will do any wear levelling. In some cases there is a pretty cheesy wear levelling strategy but there is always something, otherwise commonly written areas like the FAT tables would be quickly destroyed. |
Is it possible to have the same UBI image for the E5600 if you happen to have one? |
@chinmaythosar The E5600 is based on MT7621 (unlike the E8450/RT3200 which is based on MT7622). So it's thinkable to do similar things for MT7621-based devices as well, it's just a bit of work... Update: Now that @mtk-openwrt patches for MT7621 are part of U-Boot, I added builds for the MIPS-based reference boards (mt7620, mt7621 and mt76x8): openwrt/openwrt@2f7fb57 |
From OpenWRT-Wiki:
Could you explain to me what the disadvantages are if I use openwrt-mediatek-mt7622-linksys_e8450-squashfs-sysupgrade.bin instead of this method that creates UBI?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: