lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] LogFS take three
    Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
    > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 12:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
    > > Jörn Engel wrote:
    > > > On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
    > > > > Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
    > > > > the name than either of its predecessors :)
    > > >
    > > > Did you ever see akpm's facial expression when he tried to pronounce
    > > > "JFFS2"? ;)
    > >
    > > JFFS3 is a good, meaningful name to anyone familiar with JFFS2.
    > >
    > > But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash
    > > filesystem.... ;-)
    >
    > The problem is that JFFS2 will always be faster in terms of I/O speed
    > anyway, just because it does not have to maintain on-flash indexing
    > data structures. But yes, it is slow in mount and in building big
    > inodes, so the "faster" is confusing.

    Is LogFS really slower than JFFS2 in practice?

    I would have guessed reads to be a similar speed, tree updates to be a
    similar speed to journal updates for sustained non-fsyncing writes,
    and the difference unimportant for tiny individual commits whose index
    updates are not merged with any other. I've not thought about it much
    though.

    -- Jamie
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-16 14:31    [W:0.025 / U:0.676 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site