From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 17qUFz-0005rz-00 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:55:52 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <20020915010056.GA916@buici.com> References: <20020915010056.GA916@buici.com> <20020914235138.GA28771@bombadil.xmldesign.de> To: Marc Singer Cc: Erich Schubert , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: recommended Filesystem for DoC? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 08:55:44 +0100 Message-ID: <21231.1032076544@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: elf@buici.com said: > I've been looking into something similar. Presently, I use ext3 > because I have enough space space for a 1M journal. However, I don't > recommend this. I've been considering using cloop (KNOPPIX) because > it doesn't require a ramdisk and then installing JFFS as the root > filesystem. This means that the static part is always compressed and > mounted at boot time. Yeah. Using a journalling pseudo-filesystem to emulate a block device, and having to set aside a hunk of the space it provides for journalling of a 'normal' file system, is crazy. IMHO, you only have an excuse for pretending that flash is a block device if you're still running DOS. The JFFS2 NAND support is almost complete -- just a few corner cases to be fixed up. AFAIK it should work on DoC without too much trouble -- after all, a DoC is just a bunch of NAND flash chips. -- dwmw2