Re: LogFS merge

Thomas Gleixner
2008-05-04T16:21:51Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 708 bytes --]

On Sat, 3 May 2008, Jörn Engel wrote:
> 1.
> Ubifs takes the easy approach and uses ubi for wear leveling, bad block
> handling, ets. Saves a ton of work, gives quick results and is limited
> by ubi scan time, which is O(n).

Which is easy enough to fix.

> Logfs ignores ubi and does wear leveling, bad block handling, etc.
> itself. Bad block handling in particular is not too robust yet. If you
> expect blocks to rot away after mkfs time, logfs is a bad choice.

It's a matter of fact that especially on NAND flash blocks become bad
over time, i.e. after mkfs. So that's a pretty crucial feature which
needs to be complete and robust before it's declared to be usable on
such devices.

Thanks,
tglx