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 1JoZXa-0005V4-1D for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:37:18 +0000 Subject: Re: ubi-utils From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Nancy In-Reply-To: References: <1208769345.5965.363.camel@sauron> <1208776123.5965.367.camel@sauron> <1208881852.11721.6.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:37:46 +0300 Message-Id: <1208936266.11721.25.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 15:27 +0800, Nancy wrote: > OK, pass, will you please answer me one question: > Compare with attaching only 1 MTD device, attaching 2 MTD devices will > eat system resources a lot? will slow down the Nand write or read > speed? > All I need to know is the performances differences. Thanks a lot ! As I understand you are talking about splitting your single chip on 2 partitions and you are questioning about the difference between 1 big partition and 2 smaller. Well, I never tried this with real flash. But theoretically there should be no difference. But I do not recommend you doing this with your MLC NAND where an eraseblock survives just 10000 erase-cycles. --=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)