From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sccrmhc12.attbi.com ([204.127.202.56]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 19Q8Sn-0005rR-Tv for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:28:42 +0100 Message-ID: <3EE75C78.4020408@mvista.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:44:40 -0400 From: "George G. Davis" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Siddharth Choudhuri References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: jffs2 vs. ext3 List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Siddharth Choudhuri wrote: > I am trying jffs2 and ext3 on a 3MB Intel NOR flash. I have a piece of > code in function part_write (mtdpart.c) that outputs the size in bytes and pid > of the process (current) sending write requests. > > With ext3, no matter how many bytes are written (by an application/user > level program), the part_write function always gets a request that is > multiple of 128K (131072 bytes). This does not happen with jffs2 though. > Also, with ext3, the process is always mtdblockd, whereas with jffs2 the > process sending the request is the actual user/application process. > > Any ideas why it happens ? ... also with ext3, you'll have a brick(TM) pretty soon too. ; ) Hint: ext3 doesn't not do flash wear levelling. You'll burn out your flash chips pretty soon. -- Regards, George > > thanks in advance, > -siddharth > > _____________________________________________________________________ > Unix is user friendly - its just picky about its friends. > _____________________________________________________________________ > > > ______________________________________________________ > Linux MTD discussion mailing list > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ > > >