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 1NIJIU-0005WZ-VM for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:57:32 +0000 Subject: Re: UBIFS on Atmel Dataflash From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Andre Puschmann In-Reply-To: <4B1F7427.10002@stud.tu-ilmenau.de> References: <1260348786.19669.1231.camel@localhost> <4B1F7427.10002@stud.tu-ilmenau.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:57:18 +0200 Message-Id: <1260352638.19669.1251.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 10:55 +0100, Andre Puschmann wrote: > Hi Artem, > > thanks for your prompt reply. > > Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > Yeah, I had a feeling we should not have assumed power of 2. But it was > > so appealing, because we can avoid (slow) divisions when aligning data > > to min. I/O unit boundary. I knew about DataFlash, but it is usually so > > small that I did not expect anyone using UBIFS there. > > > > Are you sure you want ubifs on such a tiny flash? We were really > > targeting to larger ones, say, starting from 64MiB at least. > > > Mmh, the idea to run UBIFS came up due to a problem with JFFS2 on this > device. So I wanted to use another writeable flash fs to find out > whether its a fs-problem or a mtd/dataflash one. > > So you suggest to stick with JFFS2 in this case? Yes, UBI/UBIFS flash overhead is higher, and it is not very appropriate for small flashes because of this. JFFS2 is better for small flashes. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)