Re: [gentoo-user] e2fsck -a /dev/sdb1

[Mick]

On Thursday 15 Jun 2017 21:40:30 daniel@×××××.nl wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2017 9:28 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote:

> This is the first time I heard about discharge damage while unplugging. I
> highly doubt that but for curiosity sake I like some document
> proving/explaining this.

I'd like one too, but until one appears have a look at what's happening in 
this video around 0:46min.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdiJWQmSi0k

The principle is similar.  There is current flow and unplugging the conductors 
apart causes an arc.  Of course the voltages involved are much smaller and so 
is the damage.


> What I think is more likely is, flash memory needs special consideration
> when writing to. If the driver inside the USB flash drive did not have
> enough time to write out all it's accounting data on where to write stuff
> and it's cycles, the flash will be damaged.

Not really.  What you describe should only damage the filesystem not the chip 
controller, or the semiconductor material.  I've experienced hardware failure 
on USB drives which were removed during a writing cycle.


> At least I assume this holds
> for flash as it does for SSD. Both are limited in write cycles, and I'd
> assume both use a similar technique, though I have no proof to back this
> up.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Daniel

I've read that industrial NAND flash devices (Single Layer Cell construction) 
are less prone to fs damage because they include capacitors to flush any 
controller buffers not yet written to the device when the forced disconnection 
occurs.  Allegedly they also have better electro-static-discharge protection.  
Consumer grade devices are less graceful in the event of a disconnection.


PS. Can you please refrain from posting HTML messages to this mailing list.  
Many old-timers lurking around here are still using text only (teletype) 
terminals.  :p

-- 
Regards,
Mick