From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [213.170.72.194] (helo=shelob.oktetlabs.ru) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.42 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1CKF89-0004FQ-T0 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:59:52 -0400 Message-ID: <41765314.2000103@yandex.ru> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:59:16 +0400 From: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse References: <4176449B.4090706@yandex.ru> <1098270013.3872.83.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> <4176493A.5080003@yandex.ru> <1098271310.3872.87.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1098271310.3872.87.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: 4K block size question List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ok, thanks for answer. > Other than the fact that it doesn't pack well, not really. Hmm, I don't cleanly understand what do you mean. I suspect you mean that requesting the whole block from the jffs2_reserve_space() is bad idea - I agree, I am not going to do so. Or you mean that small chunks of data are compressed better than big ones? If so, can you pleas explain why? > If they're that large are they _really_ an effective use of space? Of course, I gonna request small piece of space (small minsize parameter of the jffs2_reserve_space()). But, if the jffs2_reserve_space() allocates the whole block, I think it is OK to write one big node. -- Best Regards, Artem B. Bityuckiy, St.-Petersburg, Russia.