From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 17Zh9c-0005VO-00 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:15:52 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: "Curtis, Allen" Cc: "'linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org'" Subject: Re: jffs2_scan_eraseblock() - errors Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:15:50 +0100 Message-ID: <16950.1028074550@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Allen.Curtis@Thales-IFS.com said: > Has anyone characterized the performance of the JFFS* file-systems > over time? Our initial tests indicated that JFFS2 was faster than > JFFS. After using the JFFS2 file-system and maintaining a relatively > consistent utilization there was a 4X increase in the time required to > complete a mount operation. Is this expected? Is there a worse case? > See below for some measurements. It's expected. See the TODO file for notes on how we intend to fix it. -- dwmw2