From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: What is ANAND header? From: David Woodhouse To: dedekind@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <1169740653.3721.10.camel@sauron> References: <20070124054731.GA31267@pooky.senux.com> <20070125064937.GA5712@pooky.senux.com> <1169716358.3609.12.camel@sauron> <1169739059.3593.84.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <1169740653.3721.10.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:17:39 +0800 Message-Id: <1169741859.3593.102.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Seongsu Lee List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 17:57 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > Well, FTL is somewhat similar to flash FS in terms of complexity. A > reasonably good FTL is probably not a damn difficult task. But a > scalable FTL where you do not need to scan your device when > initializing it is really difficult. No more difficult than a file system, which will give better results. > Of course, FTL will always be slower then flash-oriented FS. But if > you have a very quick HW (like Cafe?) you may end-up with an > acceptable speed - this depends on requirements. > > Also, if you teach the FS to inform FTL about blocks that are free - > it'll be much faster. Well, yes. The more you teach the FS about the actual requirements of flash hardware, the more efficient it'll be. Hence the observation that FTL isn't an interesting problem; filesystems are. -- dwmw2