JFFS3 & performance

Jörn Engel joern at wohnheim.fh-wedel.de
Thu Dec 23 08:52:31 EST 2004

On Wed, 22 December 2004 12:14:18 -0600, xemc wrote:
> Please forgive me if this is a naive question, but isn't this data
> also protected by ECC in the first place?  (or is that just for NAND?)

Just for NAND.  NOR is pretty reliable anyway, so we could just go
without a checksum.  Hard drive based filesystems usually do the same
and few people complain.
But as long as it's cheap enough, extra confidence doesn't hurt.

>  How strong is this ECC compared to CRC32 or Adler32?

No idea.

> If the ECC can handle a few bit errors, then wouldn't a simple
> checksum handle the case where the file was completely corrupt or
> partially written?

Correct.  Simple parity might be a nice reference as well.  It is
really bad at catching even-bit errors (2,4,6,...), but it's fast.


"Translations are and will always be problematic. They inflict violence 
upon two languages." (translation from German)

More information about the linux-mtd mailing list