[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070517120520.GA15676@lazybastard.org>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:05:21 +0200
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Dongjun Shin <djshin90@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three
On Thu, 17 May 2007 16:43:59 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> > As I mentioned, some techniques like log-structured filesystem could
> > perform generally better on any kind of flash-based storage with FTL.
> > Although there are many kinds of FTL, it is commonly true that
> > it performs well under workload where sequential write is dominant.
>
> Yes, it's certainly possible that we _could_ write a file system which
> is specifically targeted at FTL -- I was just wondering why anyone would
> _bother_ :)
Haven't you done that already? JFFS2 write behaviour is the best-case
scenario for any FTL. When the delta cache is finished, LogFS will be
pretty close to that as well.
Not sure if anyone would specifically target FTL. Being well-suited for
those beasts is just a side-effect.
The FTL is still a net loss. Without that FAT enabling layer a real
flash filesystem would be more efficient.
Jörn
--
Prosperity makes friends, adversity tries them.
-- Publilius Syrus
-
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