[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47F30FDD.5080003@yandex.ru>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:47:25 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 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)
Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Exactly. At exosec, we ship one appliance which writes statistics to a
> partition on a compactflash every 5 minutes. We preferred to go with JFFS2
> exactly because of this reason. We never had any problem proceeding this way.
> I'm not sure if it would have been the same with ext2 though.
>
Yes, as I agreed in a previous mail this may make sense in some cases.
But in general it is not a good approach. Basically, it is wastage of resources.
Indeed, first the firmware on MMC/SD/etc makes efforts to make flash look
like a block device. It gives you in-place updates, but by cost of performance
and reliability. Then you just drop this nice property, and use JFFS2, which
assumes it has only out-of-place updates. But if this solves the task you have
- fine!
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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