Samsung RFS Filesystem
manningc2 at actrix.gen.nz
Wed Jun 1 00:41:50 EDT 2005
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 23:42, Ludovic Guilhamat wrote:
> I would maybe interested in testing the Samsung RFS File System...
> Does someone, here, already used it, and what are the conclusions ?
Please do do some testing. It would be good to see the results, positive or
I have not used it, but from a description I can draw some immediate
RFS = Robust FAT file system
>From the blurb at
this looks a bit like FATFS running on top of DOC. It might have some
transactioning which would make it look a bit more like Microsoft's TFAT.
Neither of these are a proven reliable system. DOC can still get FAT
corruptions if you don't umount before power loss (== potentially a
completely scrambled fs). TFAT is completely unprovedn and is slower and not
always robust (not robust with typical mount options). Perhaps RFS gets the
Running FAT on NAND costs some performance due to the FTL etc. To make a
journaling system on FAT, as RFS claims, costs even more performance.
IMHO: If you want robustnes on NAND use a log structured fs designed for
flash: YAFFS or JFFS2.
For completeness, I will state that I wrote YAFFS, but I don't think this
biases my answer.
More information about the linux-mtd