From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nwexc-0004zB-Cn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:10:40 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 835A8E0DC9 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:10:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.hosting.lv (mail.hosting.lv [213.21.217.83]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389A2E0CA3 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:29:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from saustari.wifi.basnet.lv ([87.246.143.137] helo=hal9000.mebius.lv) by mail.hosting.lv with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) id 1NweJg-000JK2-Tt; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:29:24 +0300 Message-ID: <4BB226DA.200@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:29:14 +0300 From: Arkadi Shishlov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-embedded@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-embedded] file system question References: <20100329184215.539920eb@osage.osagesoftware.com> <4BB1FC9B.9070804@hiramoto.org> <4BB20736.6010700@gmail.com> <4BB213CF.4020009@hiramoto.org> In-Reply-To: <4BB213CF.4020009@hiramoto.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 564bd148-65b7-4700-9280-64fd2b29d600 X-Archives-Hash: edbd6edc906ba992185dc688240d0e8f On 03/30/10 18:07, Karl Hiramoto wrote: > On 03/30/2010 04:14 PM, Arkadi Shishlov wrote: >> On 03/30/10 16:28, Karl Hiramoto wrote: >> >>> I've used ext3 and riserfs on CompactFlash but neither seems to be 100% >>> error proof. I've wanted to try NILFS2 but haven't done it yet. >>> >> Let us know then, because something must be done to nilfs2_cleanerd >> which like >> to write a lot. >> > Sounds like a bad idea on flash then. Its probably depends on workload a lot, plus how often cleanerd is allowed to work or is it enabled at all. It actually might be better for flash, cause its not hammering multiple blocks with journal and metadata (sync) or double writes of data=journal. Working in sequential manner is presumably advantageous for (cheap) FTL too. Just a guess... Need someone to try it out in real product. :) The built-in checkpoint/snapshot feature is nice to have.