Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:17:14 +0300 | From | Artem Bityutskiy <> | Subject | Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system) |
| |
Willy Tarreau wrote: > One of the problem is that unless you crash-test your flash cards, you will > never know if their wear-leveling algorithm is fine or not. And I suspect > that nowadays, due to very large consumer demand, flash cards price drop > at the cost of reliability. I think that most of those not flagged > "industrial-grade" do absolutely zero wear-leveling, because they are sold > to people using them in digital cameras, and they will never kill their > device with such a usage.
Sure, I know about this problem. My point was that in this case it is wiser to use bare flash and put JFFS2 on it, instead of using this black box MMC/etc and then put JFFS2 on it.
> I'm certainly not the only one with this requirement. A lot of embedded > motherboards come with IDE compactflash connectors. This is very convenient, > but if you need to keep informations between reboots, you have to write to > the device anyway. If you need to do that very often, either you pray for > the device to be very reliable, or you take all the chances on your side > by adding your own wear-leveling "just in case".
OK. Fair enough. Although stuff exists, but this does not necessarily mean this a good design :-)
-- 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |