From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PxJ2l-0003oM-QJ for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:03:12 +0000 Received: by wwc33 with SMTP id 33so391008wwc.18 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 05:03:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: UBIFS defaults? From: Artem Bityutskiy To: "Hunter Adrian (Nokia-MS/Helsinki)" , linux-mtd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:01:27 +0200 Message-ID: <1299675687.2741.14.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Bhavesh Parekh Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, currently, UBIFS checks data CRC on read by default, i.e., the 'chk_data_crc' mount option is the default one. This makes people who apply benchmarks less happy, because they just use the defaults. Should we make the 'no_chk_data_crc' mount option to be the default instead? The rationale is that people who do care to read the documentation can switch to 'chk_data_crc' if they need, and people who do quick UBIFS evaluation will end up with faster read speed by default. See this section for more information about the 'no_chk_data_crc' mount option: http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/doc/ubifs.html#L_checksumming Would be nice to hear UBIFS users' opinion. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)