From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Snyder Subject: ReiserFS on a flash device? Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:40:13 -0700 Message-ID: <200307261640.13629.swsnyder@insightbb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ReiserFS Mailing List I was taken aback by Yury Umanets' recent suggestion (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&th=d50aa0bf6c7f26d0&seekm=1059231274.28094.40.camel%40haron.namesys.com.lucky.linux.kernel#link11) that ReiserFS is not an appropriate for a flash device. I am currently using it (via Linux kernel v2.4.21) on an E-Disk (http://www.bitmicro.com/products_edisk_35_scsiw.php) flash device as the front-end of a low-traffic Squid Web cache. The Squid experts recommend the use of ReiserFS (with the notail option) for it's superior performance in handling lots of small files. I understand that flash has a finite number of write cycles, but for this application performance is critical, and disk I/O (access times, not STR) is the bottleneck in Squid performance. A quote from the post referred to above: >But, if you are still want to use reiserfs for flash device, you should >do at least the following: > >(1) Make the journal substantial smaller of size. >(2) Don't turn tails off. This is useful to prolong flash live. More detail, please? How is journal size a factor? How does notails reduce flash longevity? Thanks.