Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:20:47 +0200 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system |
| |
On Mon, 31 March 2008 15:47:05 +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > > >And how does it compare to logfs? > > We don't know a lot about logfs, so you will really have to make > your own comparison. However our general impressions are as follows: > > 1. In our testing logfs file operations seem to be much slower, > see http://osl.sed.hu/wiki/ubifs/index.php/IOzone
Shiny numbers! Performance has improved significantly in the last six month. Still worth a closer look.
> 3. logfs does not seem to have bad-block handling.
Bad blocks at mkfs time are handled, blocks turning bad later on aren't yet.
> 4. logfs does not seem to have wear-leveling.
It does.
Jörn
-- Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982 -- 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/
| |