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 1K250d-00053a-4r for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 30 May 2008 13:51:07 +0000 Subject: Re: ubifs, ubiblk(formatted with vfat) and yaffs2 test. From: Artem Bityutskiy To: KeunO Park In-Reply-To: <5ed5c4730805300600v33e9c2d1hada32b24953cfaf7@mail.gmail.com> References: <5ed5c4730805292301m558dee30o66f5dd034d594390@mail.gmail.com> <1212129223.31023.106.camel@sauron> <5ed5c4730805300015o4f757dcbn394c770c2f92566a@mail.gmail.com> <1212148942.31023.135.camel@sauron> <1212149102.31023.138.camel@sauron> <5ed5c4730805300600v33e9c2d1hada32b24953cfaf7@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:49:50 +0300 Message-Id: <1212155390.31023.140.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 Fri, 2008-05-30 at 22:00 +0900, KeunO Park wrote: > > But I have to add that of course, YAFFS/JFFS2 are more light-weight > > file-system, because they do not maintain the FS index on the flash > > media. UBIFS does and this costs extra CPU cycles and extra I/O. > > >=20 > actually I did write & fsync the file during test. :-) > anyway thank you for your comment. Could you please send your test? And how you measure the load average? --=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)