From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from v006910.home.net.pl ([212.85.123.52]) by bombadil.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LZKYS-0007HF-Hm for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:39:47 +0000 Message-ID: <499A69BA.6080005@wb.com.pl> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:39:38 +0100 From: "Adam S. Turowski" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dedekind@infradead.org Subject: Re: [UBIFS] Filesystem capacity References: <49997BBF.7080906@wb.com.pl> <49998C2D.7000505@nokia.com> <1234850859.17790.213.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1234850859.17790.213.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , Adrian Hunter List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Artem Bityutskiy pisze: > Well, UBIFS does try to squeeze small nodes to the ends of eraseblocks. > And I am not convinced it is worse than JFFS2 in this respect, unless > someone shows this with a test. Where did you get those numbers? > Did you try to measure how much you can really fit? Did you read this: > http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/ubifs.html#L_df_report > ? > As I wrote in my first post, I used dd from /dev/urandom to create files and those were sizes of those files. df also reports the same: Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on ubi0:root 24.9M 24.9M 0 100% /part_root ubi1:data 22.4M 22.4M 0 100% /part_data -- Regards, Adam Turowski