Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:27:36 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system) |
| |
Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: >> Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@yandex.ru> 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.
-hpa
| |