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

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@yandex.ru> 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