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 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LZJ7U-00058m-SO for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:07:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [UBIFS] Filesystem capacity From: Artem Bityutskiy To: "Adam S. Turowski" In-Reply-To: <49998C2D.7000505@nokia.com> References: <49997BBF.7080906@wb.com.pl> <49998C2D.7000505@nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:07:39 +0200 Message-Id: <1234850859.17790.213.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , Adrian Hunter Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 17:54 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote: > Adam S. Turowski wrote: > > Hi, > > Can anyone explain differences in filesystem capacity between jffs2 and > > ubifs? > > Kernel 2.6.28 > > mtd3 29MB nor flash > > mtd4 31MB nand flash > > File created by dd-ing from /dev/urandom: > > jffs2: > > nor: 28361 kB > > nand: 31200 kB > > > > ubifs: > > one volume created on mtd3 > > UBIFS: mounted UBI device 0, volume 0, name "root" > > UBIFS: file system size: 28676736 bytes (28004 KiB, 27 MiB, 219 LEBs) > > UBIFS: journal size: 1440384 bytes (1406 KiB, 1 MiB, 11 LEBs) > > UBIFS: media format: 4 (latest is 4) > > UBIFS: default compressor: LZO > > UBIFS: reserved for root: 1417227 bytes (1384 KiB) > > > > one volume created on mtd4 > > UBIFS: mounted UBI device 1, volume 0, name "data" > > UBIFS: file system size: 31870976 bytes (31124 KiB, 30 MiB, 2008 LEBs) > > UBIFS: journal size: 1603072 bytes (1565 KiB, 1 MiB, 101 LEBs) > > UBIFS: media format: 4 (latest is 4) > > UBIFS: default compressor: LZO > > UBIFS: reserved for root: 1575089 bytes (1538 KiB) > > > > nor: 26960 kB (I can live with that) > > nand: 23552 kB (With that I cannot) > > > > Any suggestions? > > It is because the LEB size is relatively small, and UBIFS does not > fit data into the ends of eraseblocks the way JFFS2 does. Your options > are: Well, UBIFS does try to squeeze small nodes to the ends of eraseblocks. And I am not convinced it is worse than JFFS2 in this respect, unless someone shows this with a test. Where did you get those numbers? Did you try to measure how much you can really fit? Did you read this: http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/ubifs.html#L_df_report ? -- Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)