UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...>, <penberg@...>, Jörn Engel <joern@...>, <ext-adrian.hunter@...>, <jwboyer@...>, Artem B. Bityutskiy <dedekind@...>
Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 4:02 am

Artem Bityutskiy 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:

1. It works on normal block devices and it supports transparent compression

Today, a 64 GB SSD/flash-based media costs ~about the same as a 1 TB
hard disk. This makes flash very expensive to use; compression can
compensate that cost a bit (will depend on the usage, of course).

I believe there is no other Linux filesystem which can do transparent
compression on block devices.


2. It does wear-levelling also on normal block devices

Although it doesn't sound normal to do wear-levelling twice (most
flash-based block devices do wear-levelling on their own), I had a flash
corruption after just ~one month of using RAID bitmap on a IDE-flash
disk formatted with ext3. Apparently, device-level wear-levelling wasn't
spreading updates of RAID bitmap file well enough.

(...)


I too wouldn't use LogFS today in a production environment - it is still 
not feature complete and not widely tested.
I wouldn't use btrfs or ext4 today for the very same reason.


-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system), Tomasz Chmielewski, (Tue Apr 1, 4:02 am)
Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file s..., Tomasz Chmielewski, (Tue Apr 1, 5:39 am)
Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file s..., Tomasz Chmielewski, (Wed Apr 2, 10:17 am)