Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
quoted text > 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
--
unsubscribe notice 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/
Messages in current thread:
Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file ... , H. Peter Anvin , (Tue Apr 1, 9:27 am)