From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755870AbYDJJIS (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:08:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754864AbYDJJIF (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:08:05 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:2482 "EHLO spitz.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750820AbYDJJIE (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:08:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 23:09:07 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Tomasz Chmielewski Cc: LKML , penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel , ext-adrian.hunter@nokia.com, jwboyer@gmail.com, "Artem B. Bityutskiy" Subject: Re: UBIFS vs Logfs (was [RFC PATCH] UBIFS - new flash file system) Message-ID: <20080409210907.GA9683@ucw.cz> References: <47F1EC20.6050600@wpkg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47F1EC20.6050600@wpkg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > 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: > > 1. It works on normal block devices and it supports > transparent compression > > Today, a 64 GB SSD/flash-based media costs ~about the > same as a 1 TB > hard disk. This makes flash very expensive to use; > compression can > compensate that cost a bit (will depend on the usage, of > course). > > I believe there is no other Linux filesystem which can > do transparent > compression on block devices. I'd like compressed filesystem for maps and lingvistic data... but will the flash flesystems have 'reasonable' performance when used on harddrive? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html