From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170] helo=longford.logfs.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1K38dm-0007YQ-1Q for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:55:54 +0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:55:38 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: big flash disks? Message-ID: <20080602115538.GC21359@logfs.org> References: <20080601184239.GA11135@shareable.org> <1212386359.31023.154.camel@sauron> <20080602082346.GB20259@logfs.org> <20080602104330.GD31032@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20080602104330.GD31032@shareable.org> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2 June 2008 11:43:30 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > I'm surprised. > What sort of format change does SSD require, relative to NOR/NAND flash? Flash allows one to do partial writes to blocks. SSDs generally don't. Logfs currently does partial writes for atomic transactions, to make creat(), unlink(), rename() and friends behave well. Depending on your SSD a simple creat() can blow up to writing several megabytes on the actual medium. I never claimed to actually like those suckers. ;) > For SSD I would like to see a filesystem that combines the best > characteristics of btrfs and logfs - the are enough similarities > between them. True. Right now I think it is a better idea to keep the two seperate. But in the future a combination would be rather useful. Jörn -- Fantasy is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, while fantasy embraces the whole world. -- Albert Einstein