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 1JijfE-0007VB-OM for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 05:13:05 +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 1JijfD-0008AG-Aa for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:13:03 -0500 Received: from hamish by noddy.cloud.net.au with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jijf9-0000zp-3I for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:12:59 +1000 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:12:59 +1000 From: Hamish Moffatt To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: choosing a file system to use on NAND/UBI Message-ID: <20080407051259.GA3584@cloud.net.au> References: <20080328010403.GB23610@cloud.net.au> <1206686024.3856.57.camel@sauron> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1206686024.3856.57.camel@sauron> List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 08:33:44AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 12:04 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > 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. > Please, tell the size of your flash and whether it SLC or MLC. Just to finish this old discussion, it's a 512Mb SLC part. ie not very big. I have tried UBIFS and I am very pleased with it. Performance is much better than JFFS2, which was slow to mount and slow during early reads (even when the image was processed with sumtool). > > Will ubifs on UBI be better? Is it mature enough to use yet? > UBIFS mounts very quickly. It is very stable. We find minor issues from > time to time, but they are fixed quickly. I noticed that the on-chip format just changed (nanoseconds etc). Do you plan any more incompatible changes? This is the sort of maturity issue I was worried about. > > Would I be better choosing LogFS or YAFFS1/2, perhaps without UBI? > > Never used YAFFSx, but it might be worth trying and evaluating. Vs. > LogFS - last time we tried it - it was too slow. It also did not > implement wear-levelling and bad block handling. > > If you try to evaluate them - I would be interested to know about your > experience. I could not get a pre-generated YAFFS2 image to mount successfully, and a call for assistance on the YAFFS mailing list went unanswered. Although I'm interested in LogFS I don't have enough time to try it thoroughly. thanks, Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB