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 1Cm8fZ-0007tG-Fu for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2005 05:45:39 -0500 Message-ID: <41DBC52E.9020500@yandex.ru> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:45:02 +0300 From: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Scholz References: <20040113125031.GA5146@angel.research.nokia.com> <41DAAF79.8020401@imc-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <41DAAF79.8020401@imc-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: MTD List Subject: Re: JFFS2 mount time List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Try JFFS3 with "summaries" enabled or Ferenc Havasi's JFFS2 "summary" patch. The mount speed should be increased with it. Note: JFFS3 development is in progress so be ready if it has bugs. Steven Scholz wrote: > Hi, > >> Is there anything that could be done to reduce the mount time of large >> JFFS2 partitions? Lazy mounting with prioritized scanning? > > > I wonder if the current CVS head is much better (i.e. faster) in > mounting a JFFS2 root fs then linux-2.6.10? > > Or in other words: does it make sense to use the current CVS instead of > the code in linux-2.6.10? > > -- > Steven > > ______________________________________________________ > Linux MTD discussion mailing list > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ > -- Best Regards, Artem B. Bityuckiy, St.-Petersburg, Russia.