From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.170]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1JoZn0-00073z-Cp for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:53:15 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so1955837wff.24 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:53:13 +0800 From: Nancy To: dedekind@infradead.org Subject: Re: ubi-utils In-Reply-To: <1208936266.11721.25.camel@sauron> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1208769345.5965.363.camel@sauron> <1208776123.5965.367.camel@sauron> <1208881852.11721.6.camel@sauron> <1208936266.11721.25.camel@sauron> Cc: linux-mtd List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 4/23/08, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 15:27 +0800, Nancy wrote: > > OK, pass, will you please answer me one question: > > Compare with attaching only 1 MTD device, attaching 2 MTD devices will > > eat system resources a lot? will slow down the Nand write or read > > speed? > > All I need to know is the performances differences. Thanks a lot ! > > As I understand you are talking about splitting your single chip on 2 > partitions and you are questioning about the difference between 1 big > partition and 2 smaller. > > Well, I never tried this with real flash. But theoretically there should > be no difference. But I do not recommend you doing this with your MLC > NAND where an eraseblock survives just 10000 erase-cycles. Ok, I got what you mean, the only difference is Nand lifetime. Thank you : ) -- Best wishes, Nancy