From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out.hamburg.pop.de ([195.222.210.86]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 17jwvF-0000NP-00 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:07:26 +0100 Received: from mail.hamburg.pop.de ([193.98.9.7] helo=mail.provi.de) by smtp-out.hamburg.pop.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 17jwp1-0005uF-00 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:00:59 +0200 Received: from mail.jena.pop.de ([195.222.197.3]) by mail.provi.de with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #2) id 17jwr6-0000vw-00 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:03:08 +0200 Received: from goepel2.jena.provi.de (goepel2.jena.provi.de [195.222.197.91]) by mail.jena.pop.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09902 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:07:19 +0200 Received: from goepel.com (goepel109.goepel [172.16.1.109]) by goepel2.jena.provi.de (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id g7S77H224914 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:07:17 +0200 Message-ID: <3D6C76B0.2080001@goepel.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:07:28 +0200 From: Michael Palme MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: flash file system for production use Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: [forget CC to the list...] > hello... > > there are 7 mtd partitions on the 32Mb NOR flash right now. (256k > bootloader, 256k kernel parameters, 1M kernel1, 4M ramdisk1, 1M kernel2, > 4M ramdisk2 and the rest (21.5M) goes to 1 jffs2 data partition. i want > no flash- rootfs because of performance issues -- i think a ramdisk is > always the fastest. > > the reason behind the _very_big_ jffs2 partition is that i want to > assure that the flash will never(?) fail because of weak blocks sometimes. > > but thats also my fear -- i think the bigger the jffs partition the > slower it gets after some time of use because of the effort of the wear > leveling??? is this right??? I think it gets slower due to fragmentation. A JFFSx file system must scan at start up. A big fagmented partition will scan slower. I don't know enough about JFFSx, my main knowledge is about YAFFS which works on NAND. > > so what i want to know is: is a smaller jffs2 partiton better from the > performance view??? i will have no complex tree structure on the > partition, only 2 directorys with some small files... > > cheers Michael Palme > > Charles Manning schrieb: > >Have you considered partitioning? > > > >One partition for config files etc (stuff you need ASAP on boot). > >Another for verbose guff that you can mount at leasure. > > > >-- Charles > > > >On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:03, you wrote: > >>hello... > >> > >>i've got a strongarm system with 32mb intel strata flash. i need a > >>mechanism for storing configuration files etc in the flashes. for this > >>purpose 20mb of the flashes are free. the performance/ stability thing > >>is very important for me. i cant wait 10 secs fot mounting/ checking > >>etc. i' ve tried jffs2 from CVS and it seems to be "fast" on a nearly > >>empty flash partition, but i have no suggestion about what happens in > >>hard production use, when the flash will be written over and over again > >>and the wear leveling takes place. the device is never shutdown'ed in a > >>clean way -- always hard power off... > >> > >>because i have 20megs free and only small information to store i think > >>there is no need for a complex wear leveling mechanism but im not an > >>expert. > >> > >>what the best solution fot my problems??? > >> > >>please give some hints.... > >> > >> > >>thanks in advance ... Michael Palme