JFFS2 mount time

Gareth Bult (Encryptec) Gareth at Encryptec.net
Tue Dec 21 08:24:35 EST 2004


On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 14:09 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote:
> Imo jffs2-style wear leveling is very efficient.  So efficient, it
> doesn't really matter whether the hardware does the same or not.

:) I was of the same opinion but didn't really have any evidence to back
it up .. 

> Difference between no wear leveling and what jffs2 does is - at most -
> 1% additional writes on the jffs2 side.  That's not much.  Agreed, it
> can actually cost latency, but from a life-time or overall performance
> point of view, it doesn't really matter.


> On the other hand, it gives you absolute condidence that your El
> Cheapo hardware doesn't need to have anything it may or may not
> promise to have.  No nasty surprised when you really don't need them.


> Noone will state that.  It's not exactly good marketing.  You might
> remember so interesting stories about what marketing promised and what
> actually got delivered, no?

Sure, although I have noticed that some people shout more loudly than
others with regards to the wear levelling technology in their devices ..

> The endorsed features sound quite nice, agreed.  But I have still to
> read a spec that convinces me.

Mmm .. anyone know a magazine editor who'd like to acquire a bunch of
keys and runs some tests for us .. ;-)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/attachments/20041221/319d0272/attachment.bin 

More information about the linux-mtd mailing list