From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233] helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1K333W-0001c2-C6 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:58:07 +0000 Subject: Re: big flash disks? From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Jamie Lokier In-Reply-To: <20080601184239.GA11135@shareable.org> References: <20080601184239.GA11135@shareable.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:59:19 +0300 Message-Id: <1212386359.31023.154.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 Sun, 2008-06-01 at 19:42 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Some people developing newer flash filesystems (UBIFS, Logfs, > FAT-over-UBI :-) and interested in flash filesystem performance might > be interested in this slashdot comment: >=20 > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3D569439&cid=3D23618215 >=20 > They're implying that UBIFS and Logfs aren't suitable for high > performance writes and/or large flash, and don't work well with up and > coming flash disks either. >=20 > Also that patents may get in the way. >=20 > I've never heard of MFT before. People should understand that UBIFS is designed for embedded systems. It is good for low-price devices where you have just bare flash which is cheap. SSD is a completely different area and irrelevant to UBIFS. The same applies for LogFS and YAFFS IMO. Talking about using these FS-es on SSD is just silly (again IMHO). --=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)