From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: Compact Flash Question Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 08:39:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20080507083917.6eebf110@core> References: <005b01c8afc4$77f4ec90$6401a8c0@techwriter> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:38747 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758454AbYEGHsv (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 03:48:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Yigal Sadgat , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com, joern@logfs.org > For most Linux filesystems you really need wear leveling. E.g. ext3's > superblock is at a fixed location and gets overwritten frequently. > Without wear leveling you risk that the flash sector where the > superblock resides wears out early. CF sector mappings are not simple 1:1 mappings with flash blocks so this is not the case. It is true with raw flash but not with CF. What CF requires is vendor dependent but most vendors are pretty sensible. The noatime advice is however good.