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 1K3mKh-0006L9-CD for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:18:51 +0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:18:41 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: big flash disks? Message-ID: <20080604061841.GA6492@logfs.org> References: <20080601184239.GA11135@shareable.org> <20080602072842.GB19219@logfs.org> <20080602104106.GC31032@shareable.org> <20080602114339.GB21359@logfs.org> <20080602124822.GB2679@shareable.org> <20080603181226.GF1224@logfs.org> <20080603185659.GB6899@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20080603185659.GB6899@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 Tue, 3 June 2008 19:56:59 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > If that's the logfs journal - why would extra static tree depth near > the root add any write-commit overhead as you said in the grandparent > post? :-) Because I only do it for the root of the tree, as of today. > (Btw, I thought a difference between logfs and ubifs is the latter > does async writes? Or do they both?) Logfs does async writes for metadata, not for payload data. That is enough to get close to jffs2 write performance. For long streaming writes it should perform identical to ubifs, short bursts look faster in ubifs, as the data only goes to cache, not to flash. Frequent rewrites of the same data without sync in between are where ubifs currently wins. Jörn -- It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -- Samuel Adams