From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dragon.actrix.co.nz ([203.96.16.164]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 18Ka1e-00068M-00 for ; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 08:09:27 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Charles Manning Reply-To: manningc2@actrix.gen.nz To: David Woodhouse , "Chantara Thlang" Subject: Re: need arguments to use JFFS2 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 21:35:15 +1300 Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org References: <049e01c29d0f$b3c52ff0$221faf9d@iphase.com> <28792.1039171331@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <28792.1039171331@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20021207083957.9465F14AC1@dragon.actrix.co.nz> 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: It is virtually impossible to make any firm statements without understanding your needs a bit better. A few others have already covered cramfs and JFFSx. I can tell you a bit about YAFFS. YAFFS only works with NAND flash. YAFFS does not provide compression (like JFFS does). YAFFS is faster than JFFS2 in most situations and uses less RAM. Mileage will vary though. Compression is not necessarily a huge advantage for JFFSx. Some people loop-mount a cramfs image stored on YAFFS to get the benefits of compression as well as the faster speed for other files. If you have NAND, then most likely YAFFS will serve you better for larger flash arrays (say 16MB and bigger) and JFFS2 for smaller arrays. YAFFS will do nothing for you if you only have NOR flash. If you're designing a new board then consider including NAND flash for storage (rather than NOR). NAND is cheaper, smaller (physically), bigger (in bytes) and faster. You can then use YAFFS or JFFS2 (even both - by partitioning the device). -- Charles