From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:45:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:44:55 -0400 Received: from t2.redhat.com ([199.183.24.243]:11761 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:44:40 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: <3B24AF66.3010602@AnteFacto.com> In-Reply-To: <3B24AF66.3010602@AnteFacto.com> <20010525005253.A16005@bug.ucw.cz> To: Padraig Brady Cc: Pavel Machek , kernel list , jffs-dev@axis.com Subject: Re: jffs on non-MTD device? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:41:08 +0100 Message-ID: <3437.992263268@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Padraig@AnteFacto.com said: > Some (most?) CF disks have hareware wareleveling. I use ext2 with > e2compr patch. There are some who want a journalling filesystem on their CF device. Did anyone do e3compr yet? :) Personally, I wouldn't bother with it - these things have a form of pseudo-filesystem, probably similar to FTL or NFTL, implemented internally to emulate a block device, and it's been reported that they don't do that particularly well - they break down and lose data if you put them through the kind of repeated power cycle tests that JFFS and JFFS2 have been subjected to. A journalling filesystem on an unreliable medium is sort of pointless. Far better to use a real flash device. But maybe I'm biased :) -- dwmw2