* Cramfs on NAND [not found] <E1FErAE-00004u-2M@canuck.infradead.org> @ 2006-03-03 1:37 ` Terence Soh 2006-03-10 13:06 ` Josh Boyer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Terence Soh @ 2006-03-03 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-mtd Hi again, I hear that cramfs on NAND flash is not a good idea because of the bad blocks. Is this still true? There was talks some time ago about making cramfs work on top on NAND. <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2004-May/009784.html> If this is true, are there any recommendations of what other fs to use. I already have one partition of jffs2 to store read-write files. Thanks again, Terence. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Cramfs on NAND 2006-03-03 1:37 ` Cramfs on NAND Terence Soh @ 2006-03-10 13:06 ` Josh Boyer 2006-03-10 17:36 ` Russ Dill 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Josh Boyer @ 2006-03-10 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Terence Soh; +Cc: linux-mtd On 3/2/06, Terence Soh <gopher@singnet.com.sg> wrote: > Hi again, > > I hear that cramfs on NAND flash is not a good idea because of the bad > blocks. Is this still true? There was talks some time ago about making > cramfs work on top on NAND. > <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2004-May/009784.html> Yes, it's still true. CRAMFS expects it's data to be contiguous so unless you have something similar to a flash translation layer that hides the bad blocks, insanity will ensue. > If this is true, are there any recommendations of what other fs to use. > I already have one partition of jffs2 to store read-write files. Could you use a read-only JFFS2 partition? josh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Cramfs on NAND 2006-03-10 13:06 ` Josh Boyer @ 2006-03-10 17:36 ` Russ Dill 2006-03-13 0:34 ` Terence Soh 2006-03-18 2:43 ` Sean Kelley 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Russ Dill @ 2006-03-10 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Boyer; +Cc: linux-mtd, Terence Soh > > I hear that cramfs on NAND flash is not a good idea because of the bad > > blocks. Is this still true? There was talks some time ago about making > > cramfs work on top on NAND. > > <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2004-May/009784.html> > > Yes, it's still true. CRAMFS expects it's data to be contiguous so > unless you have something similar to a flash translation layer that > hides the bad blocks, insanity will ensue. > > > If this is true, are there any recommendations of what other fs to use. > > I already have one partition of jffs2 to store read-write files. > > Could you use a read-only JFFS2 partition? The other solution is to use an ftl ontop of the flash, and then put a cramfs on that. Of course, that depends on you living somewhere where algorithms are not restricted to those with the license to use them. (iirc) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Cramfs on NAND 2006-03-10 17:36 ` Russ Dill @ 2006-03-13 0:34 ` Terence Soh 2006-03-18 2:43 ` Sean Kelley 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Terence Soh @ 2006-03-13 0:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Russ Dill, Josh Boyer; +Cc: linux-mtd Hi, >>Yes, it's still true. CRAMFS expects it's data to be contiguous so >>unless you have something similar to a flash translation layer that >>hides the bad blocks, insanity will ensue. FTL will not work for me because of the licensing issues :(. >>Could you use a read-only JFFS2 partition? Besides the read-only characteristic, I'm also looking at fast mount time. I guess I should take a look at YAFFS. Question: Does a read-only JFFS2/YAFFS partition means that there will not be any wear-levelling performed? > > > The other solution is to use an ftl ontop of the flash, and then put a > cramfs on that. Of course, that depends on you living somewhere where > algorithms are not restricted to those with the license to use them. > (iirc) > Bye and thanks for your time, Terence. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Cramfs on NAND 2006-03-10 17:36 ` Russ Dill 2006-03-13 0:34 ` Terence Soh @ 2006-03-18 2:43 ` Sean Kelley 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Sean Kelley @ 2006-03-18 2:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-mtd So is a NAND based FTL for linux encumbered with patents/licensing by M-Systems? Sean On 3/10/06, Russ Dill <russ.dill@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I hear that cramfs on NAND flash is not a good idea because of the bad > > > blocks. Is this still true? There was talks some time ago about making > > > cramfs work on top on NAND. > > > <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2004-May/009784.html> > > > > Yes, it's still true. CRAMFS expects it's data to be contiguous so > > unless you have something similar to a flash translation layer that > > hides the bad blocks, insanity will ensue. > > > > > If this is true, are there any recommendations of what other fs to use. > > > I already have one partition of jffs2 to store read-write files. > > > > Could you use a read-only JFFS2 partition? > > The other solution is to use an ftl ontop of the flash, and then put a > cramfs on that. Of course, that depends on you living somewhere where > algorithms are not restricted to those with the license to use them. > (iirc) > > ______________________________________________________ > Linux MTD discussion mailing list > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-03-18 2:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <E1FErAE-00004u-2M@canuck.infradead.org>
2006-03-03 1:37 ` Cramfs on NAND Terence Soh
2006-03-10 13:06 ` Josh Boyer
2006-03-10 17:36 ` Russ Dill
2006-03-13 0:34 ` Terence Soh
2006-03-18 2:43 ` Sean Kelley
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox