login
Header Space

 
 

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

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Willy Tarreau <w@...>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Andi Kleen <andi@...>, Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, <penberg@...>, Jörn Engel <joern@...>, <ext-adrian.hunter@...>, <jwboyer@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 12:47 am

Willy Tarreau wrote:

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)
--
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..., Artem Bityutskiy, (Wed Apr 2, 12:47 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)
speck-geostationary