[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47F26278.5070009@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:27:36 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com, jwboyer@...il.com
Subject: Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system)
Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru> writes:
>>
>>> Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>> For me, the motivators to wait for LogFS are mainly the facts that it
>>>> can work on traditional block devices, and not only on pure flash:
>>> Sorry Thomasz, for me this makes zero sense. There are _much_ better
>>> file
>>> systems for block devices.
>>
>> I think he refers to flash disks appearing as block devices, like
>> usb sticks or similar.
>
> Right, I also meant that in my opinion it makes more sense to use
> traditional
> file-systems like ext3 on USB-key/MMC and the like stuff (which I
> confusingly
> referred as "block devices"), or may be something more "heavy-weight" like
> XFS or JFS (never tried them, though).
>
Well, even auto-levelling storage should benefit from a filesystem which
minimizes the total number of flash sectors churned, which means doing
as few writes as possible and to large, contiguous sections.
-hpa
--
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