Re: question: the performance of jffs2 on UBI

["Artem B. Bityutskiy" <dedekind@yandex.ru>]

Artem B. Bityutskiy wrote:
> falls huang wrote:
> 
>> The UBI and jffs2  both provide wear leveling. Will the repeated
>> wear-leveling reduce the performance of system ?
> 
> I guess jffs2 ought to be slower on UBI, but little. My *very* rough 
> test on mtdram device showed that JFFS2 over UBI is about 5% slower. But 
> more accurate testing should be done.

And note: of course, JFFS2 was not designed for UBI, so it does not use 
UBI advantages. But still, it makes a lot of sense to use JFFS2 over UBI 
because in this case you have much freedom in partitioning your flash as 
you like.

I'm planning to return to JFFS3 research/development some day and design 
JFFS2 to work on top of UBI devices.

The alternative way to is to create a good block device layer over UBI, 
and then use conventional file systems (N.B. the mtdblock driver is 
*not* a good block device layer).

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem B. Bityutskiy,
St.-Petersburg, Russia.