Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:07:48 -0600
From:      Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
To:        Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>
Cc:        usb@freebsd.org, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com>
Subject:   Re: hot usb sticks
Message-ID:  <8325A99D-54C4-4EE0-968B-6605665F930F@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <5252B9E4.2050208@freebsd.org>
References:  <201310051335.r95DZOx4004869@fire.js.berklix.net> <5250344E.2000500@quip.cz> <5252B9E4.2050208@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Oct 7, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:

> On 10/5/13 11:46 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
>> Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>>> Has anyone else noticed how hot USB sticks can get when used for =
backup ?
>>> &  also that IO errors occur after a while, which go away after a =
cold reboot.
>>>=20
>>> Not the whole stick, but the metal connector gets hot, so chip is
>>> hotter still.  Obviously one won't notice this on large plastic
>>> encassed sticks, but 2 main sicks I use are:
>>>  sandisk 2Gig metal case "vendor" "0x0781"; "product" "0x5151";
>>>  delock 8G miniature (~ 3mm of platic beyond plug)
>>>     "vendor" "0x05e3" "product" "0x0727"
>>>=20
>>> I usually notice this when I am updating (writing) a crypted (gbde)
>>> UFS file systems using port/net/rdist6 (which only rewrites updated =
files).
>>>=20
>>> Source data is 1,446,438 K bytes in 42,611 files so average
>>> size of 34 K.  But a lot of the files are really small, (~/.* config
>>> &  mail files etc, so as rdist will be updating each one =
sequentially,
>>> &  each will take a read + write cycle on a stick block,&  as many
>>> small files will probably map to the same stick block, thats
>>> some concentrated cycles.
>>>=20
>>> More stick detail at
>>> =
http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/src/bsd/fixes/FreeBSD/src/jhs/etc/devd/jhs.con=
f=20
>>>=20
>>> Quite often I have to reboot my target host that has a stick =
inserted,
>>> I believe regardless of OS version on USB target host
>>>=20
>>> Possibly there might be less heating when only reading (as read
>>> cycles are also quicker), but mainly I'm backing up, writing.
>>>=20
>>> I was thinking of making a heatsink to clamp to a USB socket on an
>>> extension cable, but before that I'll try hanging a USB extension =
cable
>>> adjacent to a case fan.
>>=20
>> I have a few USB sticks, some of them are really old (and fast!), for =
example 512MB A-Data with 200x speed, or 8GB 133x. These fast sticks are =
almost cool. Some cheap modern sticks are hot even if used as read-only =
for booting ZFS backup server, where whole base system is on UFS USB =
stick monted read-only and all writes are on ZFS partitions of 4 HDDs. =
Even in this RO scenario, the hot stick died after about 2 years. Writes =
on it was made about 3 times a year because of system or ports updates.
>>=20
>> So in my case: newer -> cheaper -> slower -> hotter =3D shorter life.
>=20
> actually, hotter is not always worse in Flash.
> Warner can say more in detail but hot is good in some case while cold =
is best when you put the device on the shelf.

The amount of damage that a P/E cycle does to a cell often is determined =
by the dwell time and temperature between program and erase. There's a =
well known Arrhenius relationship here, so as the temperature gets =
hotter, the effective dwell time increases, which allows more of the =
damage to heal. So heat can be good in a high write scenario.

However, in a low write, long retention scenario, high heat, by the same =
Arrhenius factor, will lead to much shorter retention, which may have =
contributed to your failure. There are certain housekeeping activities =
that go on in the USB stick, typically, that will move really old data, =
which causes additional writes to the flash that you are unaware of. =
Also a high read work load can tax the cells, which have only so many =
reads per page specified by the manufacturer.

But if the errors occur while it is HOT and not while it is COLD, I'd be =
suspecting an issue of construction that's to blame (eg, bad design that =
works at low temps, but at high temps the electrical characteristics of =
the data transmission lines change just enough to be out of spec). If it =
just died, then the high temperature accelerated the aging effects =
beyond the bounds of the drive firmware to cope.

Warner=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8325A99D-54C4-4EE0-968B-6605665F930F>