linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070516122548.GA25239@mail.shareable.org>
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2007 13:25:48 +0100
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.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

Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> 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.

Is LogFS really slower than JFFS2 in practice?

I would have guessed reads to be a similar speed, tree updates to be a
similar speed  to journal  updates for sustained  non-fsyncing writes,
and the difference unimportant for tiny individual commits whose index
updates are not merged with any other.  I've not thought about it much
though.

-- Jamie
-
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/