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

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@yandex.ru>]

Willy Tarreau wrote:
> One of the problem is that unless you crash-test your flash cards, you will
> never know if their wear-leveling algorithm is fine or not. And I suspect
> that nowadays, due to very large consumer demand, flash cards price drop
> at the cost of reliability. I think that most of those not flagged
> "industrial-grade" do absolutely zero wear-leveling, because they are sold
> to people using them in digital cameras, and they will never kill their
> device with such a usage.

Sure, I know about this problem. My point was that in this case it is wiser
to use bare flash and put JFFS2 on it, instead of using this black box
MMC/etc and then put JFFS2 on it.

> I'm certainly not the only one with this requirement. A lot of embedded
> motherboards come with IDE compactflash connectors. This is very convenient,
> but if you need to keep informations between reboots, you have to write to
> the device anyway. If you need to do that very often, either you pray for
> the device to be very reliable, or you take all the chances on your side
> by adding your own wear-leveling "just in case".

OK. Fair enough. Although stuff exists, but this does not necessarily mean
this a good design :-)

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)