From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbh3h-0005UT-Co for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:01:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B5AEE0565; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:01:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.159]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA3AE0565 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 13so39304fge.14 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:01:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=r3vKOrCMfvGNEb0nIA8WYC3JzPptjZx9gl3OQXWLnaY=; b=OQniZrTE5JGvUTfUwLm2hj5bajO11ftIl8u9QEPdouzJiRTglpx6jpziF2bUXvFqH/V6f6+5Nrf8zB7bIQ9GKQTu0a0Gn381QGnK4e/Jw+jQGEFYf0YpocexRJwGhUkWBXW+9Q0n9ZElVpe0BZxdy1ACNrjPHbb7oh0+dfVhQgw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=AcfEWh+K0ocIacka4IFdAjk0MAp9khFQSbbPutw6ildLC72dGaidkjYWEnAdnn1+KJ1qq2eHEQCcYw6JP3FUegCLQ++gjUam4eFq67WvXNmtEQH2iFc0Vlen31c7VipxUmRnJq08e9kIxVoZxYCu6/diajdMpt3YWFLkXGIZLkQ= Received: by 10.86.87.5 with SMTP id k5mr6366893fgb.51.1205866868480; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.135? ( [62.21.45.185]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 3sm24213261fge.7.2008.03.18.12.01.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:01:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <47E011A8.6060900@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:02:00 +0100 From: dexters84 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: jffs2 on gentoo References: <1205578235.5566.28.camel@NOTE_GENTOO64.PHHEIMNETZ> <47DC259C.50809@gmail.com> <1A85EC39-CDFF-47D8-8D13-A22471BF7EAA@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> <47DC64F5.2000402@gmail.com> <1205836393.5566.67.camel@NOTE_GENTOO64.PHHEIMNETZ> <08A23B73-F902-4362-A7DD-A339999EB037@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <08A23B73-F902-4362-A7DD-A339999EB037@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e934d1e0-e87e-4f15-aee9-ddccca2b1cfd X-Archives-Hash: 53c80c9fb0dfc67956b8a5ea23ae5b63 Hi In my system I didn't bother with any of embedded file systems - I've created 1 GB ext2 partition (journalising in ext3 increases read/write count), and it worked just like any other hard drive. Bios detected correct capacity - I was lucky with that, but in case where BIOS doesn't detect CF card properly google is Your friend. I don't have all doc I've used during setup but I remember reading this one http://silent.gumph.org/content/4/1/011-linux-on-cf.html regards Stroller pisze: > > On 18 Mar 2008, at 10:33, Florian Philipp wrote: >> On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 01:47 +0000, Stroller wrote: >>> On 17 Mar 2008, at 18:10, James wrote: >>>> ... >>>> Wear leveling is *probably* built into the IDE to CF converter >>>> carrier board? >>> >>> Almost certainly not, I'd have thought. Aren't those boards just dumb >>> pin-convertors? CF cards "talk" IDE. >> >> Yes they are. >> >> Another thought crossed my mind today: Does wear leveling work if I >> create loopback devices (ext2-formatted) on FAT32? > > Surely so. In this case you would be writing to the flash device's > FAT32 filessystem. It doesn't matter if you're writing a .RAW picture > file, an .iso or your loopback fs. > >> By the way: Why is wear leveling filesystem-dependent anyway? > > No idea. Please note that in this thread I have stated that I > _understand_ wear-levelling to be filesystem-dependent - it is others > who have made replies stating this more confidently. > >> I would >> have thought it were working on blocks (like device mapper, cryptsetup, >> lvm and so on) and not on files. > > Ah! But here we come back to the problem of recording how many times a > given block has been written upon, in order not to kill that block. > Most filesystems don't have to do that. > > Stroller. > -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list