Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system)

[H. Peter Anvin]

Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/