JFFS3 & performance

[Eric W. Biederman]

Jared Hulbert <jaredeh at gmail.com> writes:

> > Guess we'll have to agree to disagree then :).  All I know is that I
> > want to be damn sure that the data I'm returning isn't totally screwed.
> > Call me paranoid.  A checksum is the only way I know of doing that.
> 
> Paranoid :)

Only insane programmers are not paranoid.

> To humor those of us willing to take our chances trusting the media
> won't go bad, would it be possible to architect JFFS3 such that
> disabling the checksumming or stripping it out is possible with out
> too much pain?

But checksums protect against more than the reads going bad.  They
also protect against writes going bad.  With large volumes of use
write errors are almost a certainty, with NOR.  And if you miss the
fact that the error happens.  And a single bad write is especially
painful if you are writing compressed data.

If you just need reads something like romfs, or isofs tuned for from a
NOR flash chip is probably better.

Eric