Re: JFFS2 mount time

Gareth Bult (Encryptec)
2004-12-21T13:24:32Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1335 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 14:09 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> Imo jffs2-style wear leveling is very efficient. So efficient, it
> doesn't really matter whether the hardware does the same or not.

:) I was of the same opinion but didn't really have any evidence to back
it up ..

> Difference between no wear leveling and what jffs2 does is - at most -
> 1% additional writes on the jffs2 side. That's not much. Agreed, it
> can actually cost latency, but from a life-time or overall performance
> point of view, it doesn't really matter.

Sure.

> On the other hand, it gives you absolute condidence that your El
> Cheapo hardware doesn't need to have anything it may or may not
> promise to have. No nasty surprised when you really don't need them.

:)

> Noone will state that. It's not exactly good marketing. You might
> remember so interesting stories about what marketing promised and what
> actually got delivered, no?

Sure, although I have noticed that some people shout more loudly than
others with regards to the wear levelling technology in their devices ..

> The endorsed features sound quite nice, agreed. But I have still to
> read a spec that convinces me.

Mmm .. anyone know a magazine editor who'd like to acquire a bunch of
keys and runs some tests for us .. ;-)

Gareth.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]