Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 23:46:00 -0300 From: "Dr. Rolf Jansen" <rj@obsigna.com> To: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Identifying counterfeit microSD cards on a Beaglebone Black Message-ID: <7E957E90-5579-4A7F-83DC-1B5522833EC2@obsigna.com> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfrjngmk8S%2B-Oz-rCUqKW8by4GBrRAxSWivMx-DL0M_LSw@mail.gmail.com> References: <D08E6528-56E6-4229-8722-D87116B8064D@obsigna.com> <CANCZdfo97-iFg4zLxbyQhv9rPrd8eU5rN-mzDL5wz3xj6XxrsQ@mail.gmail.com> <A633D336-2581-4C51-A3C9-7AFD0ABB9E9F@obsigna.com> <1489864043.40576.219.camel@freebsd.org> <16B03E70-00E6-4C17-9A9A-8601F4C07364@obsigna.com> <2F7D5F42-E50A-4761-9EEC-DC873BD7D0AB@obsigna.com> <CAB=2f8wR57ip7gUVGQqHNAzCHq-qiC8nwVG1%2BASu1N3kCcKrEQ@mail.gmail.com> <70C95FC9-4B0A-4DA4-9857-EFAF41522D1B@obsigna.com> <1490281652.58015.71.camel@freebsd.org> <CANCZdfrjngmk8S%2B-Oz-rCUqKW8by4GBrRAxSWivMx-DL0M_LSw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 23.03.2017 um 17:37 schrieb Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 00:42 -0300, Dr. Rolf Jansen wrote: >>> Am 21.03.2017 um 13:25 schrieb Luiz Otavio O Souza = <lists.br@gmail.com>: >>>> On 19 March 2017 at 18:45, Dr. Rolf Jansen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> ... ask you for suggestions. >>>> [picking a random message to reply] >>>>=20 >>>> I just saw an email from SanDisk support (whatever this means) >>>> where >>>> they claim the only supported model for this kind of use is the >>>> high-endurance series: >>>> https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/microsd-cards/high-endura >>>> nce-microsd >>>>=20 >>>> This same email says that running any kind of OS in any of the >>>> other >>>> card models automatically breaks the warranty. >>> Luiz, thank you very much for the note. Do you know, whether this >>> high endurance XC card is compatible with the Beaglebone Black? >>=20 >> I would assume that it is, they're typically just standard sd cards >> with flash arrays based on SLC technology and with a lot of extra = space >> for reassigning bad blocks (a card that claims 8gb capacity could >> actually have 4x that many blocks or more available internally). >=20 > I don't think there's 4x over-provisioning. Where do you get that = figure? >=20 > When I was at Fusion I/O, the designs there were all in the 9-24% > range, and our "intel" on what others were doing showed a range of 5% > to 40% depending on the market segment and type of NAND use. If they > are really using SLC NAND for these cards, the sparing is likely less > because TLC NAND has about a 200-300 endurance rating (program erase > cycles per erase block). MLC is between 3000-5000. SLC is like > 30,000-100,000. SLC has also 10-100x better error rates than MLC which > has 10-100x better than TLC due to how the charge nodes are programmed > and the tolerances associated with that programming. There was > constant pressure to come up with designs that needed less sparing, so > I doubt things have changed to require 4x over provisioning.... What > might be going on when people say that has to due with a feature of > modern NAND chips: they can be programmed as SLC, MLC or TLC often on > a per-erase block basis. In that case, a SLC configuration with a 33% > over provisioning would have a 4x maximum theoretical raw capacity > over the selected size for the drive (so a 8GB drive would have 8GB * > 1.33 (over provisioning: spares and OOB) * 3 (TLC multiplier) or 32GB > of raw capacity). >=20 >> But be aware that high-endurance or industrial-rated cards can be = very >> expensive. I think at work we pay around $40 each for = industrial-rated >> 8gb cards. (One of them was included in those test results I posted, >> and the performance was among the best, at least you get something = for >> all that extra money.) >=20 > Part of the issue is that NAND chips these days can be SLC, MLC or TLC > depending on how you program them (often on an erase-block level).[*] > This means that the 8GB SLC card could also be a 16GB MLC card or a > 24GB TLC card (well, due to sparing it likely wouldn't scale > linearly). So from that perspective, I can see where a 4x number might > come up (high number of bits possible for the die vs capacity > configured for SLC + spares). At 33% sparing, the differences between > the SD presented capacity point of 8GB would have close to 32GB of > potential raw capacity were it run in TLC mode.... In addition, high > endurance cards are often selected from the wafers at manufacturing > time because they have the lowest error rate and other metrics so the > NAND makers know that they will survive (the NAND manufacturing > process isn't too uniform across the wafer due to micro variations in > the wafer and other effects at the nano-scale). Often times these are > also pulled from processes that typically yield better results but are > more expensive. So the relative rarity of the raw dies plus the > increased production cost plus running them in a faster, more reliable > mode all lead to the cards being more expensive.... >=20 > So that's why it's so expensive, especially on the high end: you are > paying extra for quality. Warner and Ian, thank you very much for sharing your much deeper = insights on the matter. I am setting up a prototype for a mostly autonomous measurement device = for an industrial application using the BBB as the controller. For this = reason I am interested in the ti_adc driver, and I was glad that I got = it working. Once the device has been setup, writes to the SD card will be limited to = logging measurement data and activity events besides the normal FreeBSD = logging. The 4 GB internal flash of the BBB would be more than = sufficient to hold everything, however, I was thinking that using an = external SD card in order not to damage the BBB because of flash wear, = would be a good idea. Well, for this kind of application $40 is still in the budget, however, = it comes already close to the cost of the BBB itself. Perhaps, I simply = forget the SD cards and provide to my future customers spare BBB's. Anyway, I guess I need to do some lifetime simulation of the external = flash compared to the internal one, so I could take a more educated = decision based on these results. =20 Best regards Rolf =20=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7E957E90-5579-4A7F-83DC-1B5522833EC2>