Skip to main content

A Comparative Study of Classification Methods for Flash Memory Error Rate Prediction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
The International Conference on Advanced Machine Learning Technologies and Applications (AMLTA2018) (AMLTA 2018)

Abstract

NAND Flash memory has been the fastest growing technology in the history of semiconductors and is now almost ubiquitous in the world of data storage. However, NAND devices are not error-free and the raw bit error rate (RBER) increases as devices are programmed and erase (P-E cycled). This requires the use of error correction codes (ECCs), which operate on chunks of data called codewords. NAND manufacturers specify the number of P-E cycles a device can tolerate (known as endurance) very conservatively to account for quality variations within and across devices. This research uses machine learning to predict the true cycling level each part of a NAND device can tolerate, based on measurements taken from the device as it is used. Real data is gathered on millions of codewords and eight machine learning classification methods are compared. A new subsampling method based on the error probability density function is also proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bek, E.: Why your PC should have an SSD. In: 2015 Flash Memory Summit Conference, Santa Clara (2015). www.flashmemorysummit.com. Accessed 03 Aug 2017

  2. Schroeder, B., Lagisetty, R., Merchant, A.: Flash reliability in production: the expected and the unexpected. In: 14th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST 2016), pp. 67–80. USENIX Association, Santa Clara (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lee, J.D., Choi, J.H., Park, D., Kim, K.: Degradation of tunnel oxide by FN current stress and its effects on data retention characteristics of 90 nm NAND flash memory cells. In: Reliability Physics Symposium Proceedings, 2003. 41st Annual, 2003 IEEE International, pp. 497–501 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mielke, N., Marquart, T., Wu, N., Kessenich, J., Belgal, H., Schares, E., Trivedi, F., Goodness, E., Nevill, L.R.: Bit error rate in NAND flash memories. In: 2008 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium, pp. 9–19 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hogan, D., Arbuckle, T., Ryan, C.: Evolving a storage block endurance classifier for flash memory: a trial implementation. In: 2012 IEEE 11th International Conference on Cybernetic Intelligent Systems (CIS), pp. 12–17 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arbuckle, T., Hogan, D., Ryan, C.: Learning predictors for flash memory endurance: a comparative study of alternative classification methods. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Stud. 3(1), 18–39 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jesd218a: Solid state drive (SSD) requirements and endurance test method. Standard, JEDEC (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mielke, N., Belgal, H., Fazio, A., Meng, Q., Righos, N.: Recovery effects in the distributed cycling of flash memories. In: Reliability Physics Symposium Proceedings, 2006. 44th Annual, IEEE International, pp. 29–35 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Batista, G.E.A.P.A., Prati, R.C., Monard, M.C.: A study of the behaviour of several methods for balancing machine learning training data. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 6, 20–29 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kubat, M., Matwin, S.: Addressing the curse of imbalanced training sets: one-sided selection. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 179–186 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  11. McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J., Conover, W.J.: A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. In: Technometrics, American Society for Quality Control and American Statistical Association, pp. 55–61 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry Fitzgerald .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Fitzgerald, B., Fitzgerald, J., Ryan, C., Sullivan, J. (2018). A Comparative Study of Classification Methods for Flash Memory Error Rate Prediction. In: Hassanien, A., Tolba, M., Elhoseny, M., Mostafa, M. (eds) The International Conference on Advanced Machine Learning Technologies and Applications (AMLTA2018). AMLTA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 723. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74690-6_38

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74690-6_38

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74689-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74690-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics