performance of JFFS and YAFFS in terms of in-place updates

performance of JFFS and YAFFS in terms of in-place updates

[Howard Yoo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 727 bytes --]

Dear members,

we're testing the performance btw. JFFS and YAFFS, and we're currently
using nand simulator to simulate the nand flash behavior (since we don't
have the physical flash for our testing) on linux kernel 2.6.17.

While running both FFS's, we've found out that somehow, JFFS shows much
better performance than YAFFS, in terms of in-place updates and erase
counts. However, we're not really sure whether this is the right figure,
and since we're new in dealing with nand flash memory, we want to be
sure if there is a specific(proper) ways to run JFFS on nand simulator.,
or is there any nand simulator specifically tuned for YAFFS, or is it
that simply JFFS is better in terms of in-place updates compared to YAFFS?

[-- Attachment #2: hyunggook.yoo.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 349 bytes --]

begin:vcard
fn:Hyung Gook Yoo
n:Yoo;Hyung Gook
org:OARDC;Korea
adr:;;;Seoul;;;South Korea
email;internet:hyunggook.yoo@oracle.com
title:Member of the technical staff
tel;work:+82.2.2194.7562
note:<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6439/404/320/HyungGookYoo_en_400.jpg" border="0" />
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: performance of JFFS and YAFFS in terms of in-place updates

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 17:50 +0900, Howard Yoo wrote:
> we're testing the performance btw. JFFS and YAFFS, and we're currently
> using nand simulator to simulate the nand flash behavior (since we don't
> have the physical flash for our testing) on linux kernel 2.6.17.

Please, elaborate, this is JFFS or JFFS2? JFFS is almost dead.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)