From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.imc-berlin.de ([217.110.46.186]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DxQ4w-0001a4-4o for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:06:49 +0100 Message-ID: <42E64350.6060100@imc-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:06:08 +0200 From: Steven Scholz MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ferenc Havasi References: <1121867130.12903.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42E634D0.6090300@inf.u-szeged.hu> <42E63731.8010209@imc-berlin.de> <42E6432A.7030207@inf.u-szeged.hu> In-Reply-To: <42E6432A.7030207@inf.u-szeged.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: JFFS2 garbage collector blocking for minutes after mount List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ferenc Havasi wrote: > Steven Scholz wrote: > > >>Does writing "every relevant memory representation" significantly >>increase umount time? > > > It depends on many-many things. Just an example: with a 6M image (where > there is a lot of small file) it costs 75K to write out. So erasing and writing 2 64kB sectors on a normal NOR flash. Not much though. Compared with several seconds mount time ... -- Steven