From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from risingsoftware01.propagation.net ([66.221.33.65]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Jf30q-00019D-Sg for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:04:09 +0000 Received: from c122-107-142-134.eburwd5.vic.optusnet.com.au ([122.107.142.134] helo=noddy.cloud.net.au) by risingsoftware01.propagation.net with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Jf30p-0000eu-UO for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:04:08 -0500 Received: from hamish by noddy.cloud.net.au with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jf30l-0006S7-9d for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:04:03 +1100 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:04:03 +1100 From: Hamish Moffatt To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: choosing a file system to use on NAND/UBI Message-ID: <20080328010403.GB23610@cloud.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I'm developing an embedded product which will have its root file system on NAND. The root will be pre-prepared and installed using flashcp/nandwrite/ubiupdatevol, and usually mounted read-only. Occasionally we might want to mount it read/write for debug purposes. I'm intending to use UBI for volume management and wear-levelling. JFFS2 on UBI does not seem very fast, in particular mount time and initial access (until cache is populated). I tried disabling compression but that seemed to make it worse (mount time was doubled). Will ubifs on UBI be better? Is it mature enough to use yet? For static volumes you have UBI protecting you, so you should not need file-system CRC checking as JFFS2 does, correct? Are there any file systems which take advantage of this property? Would I be better choosing LogFS or YAFFS1/2, perhaps without UBI? thanks Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB