From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [84.204.75.166] (helo=shelob.oktetlabs.ru) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.54 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1FQh1k-0002et-Aj for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 04:36:50 -0400 Message-ID: <44322FF7.80909@yandex.ru> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:36:07 +0400 From: "Artem B. Bityutskiy" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter J Zhu References: <20060404020154.30683.qmail@web15103.mail.cnb.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20060404020154.30683.qmail@web15103.mail.cnb.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: EBS effect List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Peter J Zhu wrote: > hello, > > Recently I enanbled EBS with 2.6.15 on Samsung small > page(oobblock = 512B)NAND chip. The results is as > following: > > Without EBS With EBS > > Imagesize 31378292B 42379624B > > Mouttime 17s ~ 14s ~ > > The overhead space is too much while providing NOT > high mout time improvement But from the thread > http://mhonarc.axis.se/jffs-dev/msg01763.html, > results seems too bad compared with what's claimed. > > The only diff I can imagine is that he might use big > page NAND. Any hints are very much appreciated. > What's the size of your MTD device? -- Best Regards, Artem B. Bityutskiy, St.-Petersburg, Russia.