From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230] helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com)
	by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1K1y9m-0003f1-Ef
	for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 30 May 2008 06:32:07 +0000
Subject: Re: ubifs, ubiblk(formatted with vfat) and yaffs2 test.
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org>
To: KeunO Park <lastnite@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5ed5c4730805292301m558dee30o66f5dd034d594390@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5ed5c4730805292301m558dee30o66f5dd034d594390@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:33:43 +0300
Message-Id: <1212129223.31023.106.camel@sauron>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 15:01 +0900, KeunO Park wrote:
> I am working in embedded device. and I handled some kind of flash
> filesystem like yaffs2, jffs2, rfs on ONENAND/NAND and tffs on MDOC.
> you know, in territory of mobile phone, mass storage class func
> becomes basic function.

Yes, yaffs, jffs2 are "special" class of file-systems and they were not
designed to be what you call "mass storage class func". They should
rather be used as root file system on "internal" flash, which is smaller
than "mass memory", where you store your core libraries, etc.=20

> yaffs2
> write: 10.20s, 12.09s, 12.24s avg:11.51s (868KB/s)
> load avg right after copy&sync: 0.03 -> 0.11
>=20
> ubifs (LZO)
> write: 14.45s, 14.40s, 14.45s avg:14.43s (693KB/s)
> load avg right after copy&sync: 0.03 -> 0.53
>=20
> ubifs (ZLIB)
> write : 27.17s, 27.18s, 27.21s avg:27.18 (367KB/s)
> load avg right after copy&sync: 0.03 -> 0.80
>=20
> ubifs (No Compression)
> write: 6.69s, 10.90s, 10.98s avg:9.52s (1050KB/s)
> load avg right after copy&sync: 0.03 -> 0.43
We beat yaffs2? Sounds nice :-)

> ubiblk(vfat mount)
> read: 0.46s, 0.47s, 0.46s avg: 0.463s (21.5MB/s)
> write: 12.13s, 14.95s, 12.61s avg:13.23s (755KB/s)
> load avg right after copy&sync: 0.02 -> 0.31
>=20
> With above result, it seems that there is some overload in ubi.
I do not really see what is the question you want to ask.

--=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)