[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system)
Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Artem Bityutskiy <> writes:
>>> Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>> For me, the motivators to wait for LogFS are mainly the facts that it
>>>> can work on traditional block devices, and not only on pure flash:
>>> Sorry Thomasz, for me this makes zero sense. There are _much_ better
>>> file
>>> systems for block devices.
>> I think he refers to flash disks appearing as block devices, like
>> usb sticks or similar.
> Right, I also meant that in my opinion it makes more sense to use
> traditional
> file-systems like ext3 on USB-key/MMC and the like stuff (which I
> confusingly
> referred as "block devices"), or may be something more "heavy-weight" like
> XFS or JFS (never tried them, though).

Well, even auto-levelling storage should benefit from a filesystem which
minimizes the total number of flash sectors churned, which means doing
as few writes as possible and to large, contiguous sections.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-01 18:31    [W:0.129 / U:64.868 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site