From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.105.134] helo=mgw-mx09.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Jimv4-0000WD-EW for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:41:38 +0000 Subject: Re: choosing a file system to use on NAND/UBI From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Hamish Moffatt In-Reply-To: <20080407073227.GA6317@cloud.net.au> References: <20080328010403.GB23610@cloud.net.au> <1206686024.3856.57.camel@sauron> <20080407051259.GA3584@cloud.net.au> <1207552429.8040.33.camel@sauron> <20080407073227.GA6317@cloud.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:41:05 +0300 Message-Id: <1207557665.8040.81.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 17:32 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > I switched my UBIFS from the default lzo to zlib compression, as the > resulting images (from mkfs.ubifs) were smaller. Is there any reason to > prefer the default lzo? Just FYI, although zlib compresses better, it is slower as well. According to Richard:=20 "This is particularly useful for jffs2 where significant boot time speedups (~10%) and file read speed improvements (~40%) are seen when its used with only a slight drop in file compression ratio." AFAIK, the figures were related to Nokia N800. I guess for "desktop" CPU this would not make such a big difference. --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)