Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:47:25 +0300 | From | Artem Bityutskiy <> | 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |