[jeremyvisser]

Here’s the thing. That SSD controller is the interface between you and those blocks.

If it decides, by some arbitrary measurement, as defined by some logic within its black box firmware, that it should stop returning all blocks, then it will do so, and you have almost no recourse.

This is a very common failure mode of SSDs. As a consequence of some failed blocks (likely exceeding a number of failed blocks, or perhaps the controller’s own storage failed), drives will commonly brick themselves.

Perhaps you haven’t seen it happen, or your SSD doesn’t do this, or perhaps certain models or firmwares don’t, but some certainly do, both from my own experience, and countless accounts I’ve read elsewhere, so this is more common than you might realise.

[reactordev]

This is correct, you still have to go through firmware to gain access to the block/page on “disk” and if the firmware decides the block is invalid than it fails.

You can sidestep this by bypassing the controller on a test bench though. Pinning wires to the chips. At that point it’s no longer an SSD.

[londons_explore]

The mechanism is usually that the SSD controller requires that some work be done before your read - for example rewriting some access tables to record 'hot' data.

That work can't be done because there is no free blocks. However, no space can be freed up because every spare writable block is bad or is in some other unusable state.

The drive is therefore dead - it will enumerate, but neither read nor write anything.

[ThePowerOfFuet]

I don't think this is correct; it could read the flash block containing the [part of the] table in question, update it in memory, erase that block, then rewrite it into the same block.

[cogman10]

I really wish this responsibility was something hoisted up into the FS and not a responsibility of the drive itself.

It's ridiculous (IMO) that SSD firmware is doing so much transparent work just to keep the illusion that the drive is actually spinning metal with similar sector write performance.

[immibis]

Linux supports raw flash, called an MTD device (memory technology device). It's often used in embedded systems. And it has MTD-native filesystems such as ubifs. But it's only really used in embedded systems because... PC SSDs don't expose that kind of interface. (Nor would you necessarily want them to. A faulty driver would quietly brick your hardware in a matter of minutes to hours)

[bzzzt]

A buggy firmware will brick an SSD and block every option for recovering at least part of the data.

[bzzzt]

Seems like the approach Apple is taking by soldering storage directly on the mainboard or using proprietary modules like in the Mac mini.

[adrian_b]

When only a number of 4 kB blocks cannot be read, if the amount of affected data is less than the amount of added redundancy the archive file can still be repaired.

For instance, if you have a 40 GB backup archive with 10% redundancy, 4 GB of data, i.e. one million 4 kB data blocks can be unreadable and you can still repair the archive and recover the complete content.

It is true that the entire SSD or HDD can become bricked. The solution for this, as I have already written in my previous comment, is to duplicate any SSD/HDD used for archival purposes, which I always do.

[lazide]

Yes, and? HDD controllers dying and head crashes are a thing too.

At least in the ‘bricked’ case it’s a trivial RMA - corrupt blocks tend to be a harder fight. And since ‘bricked’ is such a trivial RMA, manufacturers have more of an incentive to fix it or go broke, or avoid it in the first place.

This is why backups are important now; and always have been.

[mort96]

We're not talking about the SSD controller dying. The SSD controller in the hypothetical situation that's being described is working as intended.

[lazide]

Not as far as I can tell, where intended is ‘as any user would reasonably expect’. Bricking the drive (can’t even read) because of too many errors is not what most users would ever want.

Some would (enterprise maybe), but even then they’d want deterministic data deletes too, which doesn’t sound like are happening.

[mort96]

You can argue that controllers shouldn't behave that way. But they do, it's not a bug, and it's not a dead controller. It's a perfectly functional controller's response to dead blocks.

[lazide]

Cite? By definition it appears to not meet the definition of ‘functional’.

[coldtea]

The definition of functional in the context of the discussion is that in works in the way the manufacture explicitly designed it work, in a standard industry practice fashion, not as an unforeseen bug or malfunction.

Not some abstract notion.

[asdefghyk]

RE "....This is why backups are important now; and always have been..."

Still a big problem if backup is to the "..same technology..."

[lazide]

That’s why 3-2-1 is not just a good idea.