Re: JFFS3 & performance

Artem B. Bityuckiy
2005-01-23T10:08:48Z

On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 13:03 +0300, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 22:04 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Compression has other drawbacks though -- if you throw out compression
> > you can do fixed-size records, you can have a block-based architecture
> > and simplify your metadata, ...
>
> Hmm. What do you mean? Do you mean YAFFS-like architecture? Than we
> would better do YAFFS2 then JFFS3 :-))
>
> If to be serious, I really can't imagine this. Do you mean, just to fix
> the size of inode node data, say, to 512 bytes? What to do with
> direntries?
>
> Is it really feasible? Will we still have JFFS3 generation?
Ouch, I meant JFFS2 generation.