linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] UBIFS

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: <20080331132047.GA31660@logfs.org>
Date:	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:20:47 +0200
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To:	Adrian Hunter <ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com>
Cc:	ext Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, joern@...ybastard.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system

On Mon, 31 March 2008 15:47:05 +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >
> >And how does it compare to logfs?
> 
> We don't know a lot about logfs, so you will really have to make
> your own comparison.  However our general impressions are as follows:
> 
> 1. In our testing logfs file operations seem to be much slower,
> see http://osl.sed.hu/wiki/ubifs/index.php/IOzone

Shiny numbers!  Performance has improved significantly in the last six
month.  Still worth a closer look.

> 3. logfs does not seem to have bad-block handling.

Bad blocks at mkfs time are handled, blocks turning bad later on aren't
yet.

> 4. logfs does not seem to have wear-leveling.

It does.

Jörn

-- 
Fools ignore complexity.  Pragmatists suffer it.
Some can avoid it.  Geniuses remove it.
-- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept.  1982
--
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/