From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pop.scorch.co.nz ([203.167.215.14] helo=firstline.co.nz) by canuck.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.62 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1FkE6T-0003qY-Iu for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 28 May 2006 01:46:25 -0400 From: Charles Manning To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 17:54:26 +1200 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200605281754.26258.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> Cc: Han Chang Subject: Re: FAT vs jFFS2 for NAND. List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sunday 28 May 2006 14:58, Han Chang wrote: > Hi there, > > My first question is that if I can use FAT file system for NAND. If yes, > what are the pros and cons for using FAT vs. JFFS2. FAT needs to work with a block driver, so you can use FAT if you use a block driver on top of the NAND. You can use JFFS2 or YAFFS as true flash file systems (ie that work directly with the NAND). Pros of FAT: *) If you're using this on a device that must look like a USB mass storage device, or similar, then FAT is easier for people to use. *) Have a smaller RAM footprint than JFFS2 or YAFFS. JFFS2 and YAFFS both use ram to build runtime look-up trees. *) FAT file systems will typically mount faster than JFFS2 and YAFFS, though both YAFFS and JFFS2 mount times have reduced significantly in recent weeks. Pros of YAFFS or JFFS2: *) Faster. YAFFS is faster than JFFS2 which should be faster than FAT. *) YAFFS and JFFS2 are both log structured fs which make them far more robust against corruption than FAT. *) YAFFS abd JFFS2 support features like links which are missing from FAT. -- Charles