From: Martin <m_btrfs@ml1.co.uk>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: USB memory sticks wear & speed: btrfs vs f2fs?
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:13:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <n9chle$q0h$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
How does btrfs compare to f2fs for use on (128GByte) USB memory sticks?
Particularly for wearing out certain storage blocks?
Does btrfs heavily use particular storage blocks that will prematurely
"wear out"?
(That is, could the whole 128GBytes be lost due to one 4kByte block
having been re-written excessively too many times due to a fixed
repeatedly used filesystem block?)
Any other comparisons/thoughts for btrfs vs f2fs?
Thanks for any comment,
Martin
next reply other threads:[~2016-02-09 11:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-09 11:13 Martin [this message]
2016-02-09 14:08 ` USB memory sticks wear & speed: btrfs vs f2fs? Brendan Hide
2016-02-09 14:59 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2016-02-09 21:52 ` Kai Krakow
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='n9chle$q0h$1@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=m_btrfs@ml1.co.uk \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).