| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:26:38 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@...eyko.com> Cc: Sooman Jeong <77smart@...yang.ac.kr>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Initial report on F2FS filesystem performance Hi! > >> This is a brief summary of our initial filesystem performance study of f2fs against existing two filesystems in linux: EXT4, NILFS2, and f2fs. > >> > > > > Hmm, flashes are actually optimized for VFAT, right? Can you compare > > against that? > > > > Do you mean SD-cards? Because, as I can understand, "raw" flash (I mean NAND chip) hasn't any special filesystem-related optimization. Moreover, as I know, this optimization takes place in the begin of device (because FAT metadata is placed in the volume's begin). But if you have several partition on a device then you haven't any optimizations for second and next FAT partitions. So, in-place modified metadata of f2fs is placed in the begin of the volume also. > > Or, maybe, do you mean some another special optimization for VFAT? > I meant SD-card, sorry. Compare factory-formatted VFAT on SD card with f2fs running on the same partition. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists