Re: FAT vs jFFS2 for NAND.

Han Chang
2006-06-15T00:52:27Z

Thanks for the information. Now I started to make FAT work on NAND.
"mkdosfs" uses ioctl to check if the device is a floppy disk or hard disk,
but NAND is neither of these, so it fails. Is there any way to get around
this?

Should I do fdisk on the NAND device, if I can already create partition in
the driver initiation?

Thanks,
Han

>From: Charles Manning <manningc2@actrix.gen.nz>
>To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
>CC: "Han Chang" <posaune@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: FAT vs jFFS2 for NAND.
>Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 17:54:26 +1200
>
>On Sunday 28 May 2006 14:58, Han Chang wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > My first question is that if I can use FAT file system for NAND. If yes,
> > what are the pros and cons for using FAT vs. JFFS2.
>
>FAT needs to work with a block driver, so you can use FAT if you use a
>block
>driver on top of the NAND.
>
>You can use JFFS2 or YAFFS as true flash file systems (ie that work
>directly
>with the NAND).
>
>
>Pros of FAT:
>*) If you're using this on a device that must look like a USB mass storage
>device, or similar, then FAT is easier for people to use.
>*) Have a smaller RAM footprint than JFFS2 or YAFFS. JFFS2 and YAFFS both
>use
>ram to build runtime look-up trees.
>*) FAT file systems will typically mount faster than JFFS2 and YAFFS,
>though
>both YAFFS and JFFS2 mount times have reduced significantly in recent
>weeks.
>
>Pros of YAFFS or JFFS2:
>*) Faster. YAFFS is faster than JFFS2 which should be faster than FAT.
>*) YAFFS and JFFS2 are both log structured fs which make them far more
>robust
>against corruption than FAT.
>*) YAFFS abd JFFS2 support features like links which are missing from FAT.
>
>-- Charles
>
>