From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1K37Vj-0007nX-D8 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:43:31 +0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:43:30 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Subject: Re: big flash disks? Message-ID: <20080602104330.GD31032@shareable.org> References: <20080601184239.GA11135@shareable.org> <1212386359.31023.154.camel@sauron> <20080602082346.GB20259@logfs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20080602082346.GB20259@logfs.org> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Jörn Engel wrote: > At the moment, the flash one can sensibly attach to a notebook is an > SSD with SATA interface. It has a bunch of disadvantages and there is > no point in listing them all. But it is the reality and denying it > doesn't change that. And this reality is the reason why logfs needs > another format change and Linus doesn't want to have it merged yet. > Making it perform well on SSDs comes first. :) I'm surprised. What sort of format change does SSD require, relative to NOR/NAND flash? For SSD I would like to see a filesystem that combines the best characteristics of btrfs and logfs - the are enough similarities between them. -- Jamie