[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1179315498.3642.19.camel@sauron>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:38:18 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc: Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>,
akpm@...l.org, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 12:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Jörn Engel wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to
> > > the name than either of its predecessors :)
> >
> > Did you ever see akpm's facial expression when he tried to pronounce
> > "JFFS2"? ;)
>
> JFFS3 is a good, meaningful name to anyone familiar with JFFS2.
>
> But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash
> filesystem.... ;-)
The problem is that JFFS2 will always be faster in terms of I/O speed
anyway, just because it does not have to maintain on-flash indexing
data structures. But yes, it is slow in mount and in building big
inodes, so the "faster" is confusing.
--
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)
-
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