lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system)
Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Exactly. At exosec, we ship one appliance which writes statistics to a
> partition on a compactflash every 5 minutes. We preferred to go with JFFS2
> exactly because of this reason. We never had any problem proceeding this way.
> I'm not sure if it would have been the same with ext2 though.
>

Yes, as I agreed in a previous mail this may make sense in some cases.

But in general it is not a good approach. Basically, it is wastage of resources.
Indeed, first the firmware on MMC/SD/etc makes efforts to make flash look
like a block device. It gives you in-place updates, but by cost of performance
and reliability. Then you just drop this nice property, and use JFFS2, which
assumes it has only out-of-place updates. But if this solves the task you have
- fine!

--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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: 2008-04-02 06:55    [W:0.065 / U:1.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site