Samsung RFS Filesystem
Ludovic Guilhamat
lguilhamat at perax.fr
Wed Jun 1 02:28:30 EDT 2005
Charles Manning a écrit :
>On Tuesday 31 May 2005 23:42, Ludovic Guilhamat wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>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
>negative.
>
>I have not used it, but from a description I can draw some immediate
>conclusions.
>
>RFS = Robust FAT file system
>
>>From the blurb at
>http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/Flash/TechnicalInfo/rfs.htm
>
>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
>robustness right.
>
>
>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.
>
>-- CHarles
>
>
>
Thanks.
Actually, the system I work on uses Jffs2 (Coldfire with uClinux). But,
mount times are very long (the memory is a Flash Nand 16Mb). So, I
planned to test Jffs2 patches (from the Jffs2 Improvement Project), then
Yaffs. And as RFS is not freely distributed, and I don't know yet its
cost, I wanted to know if someone had tested it.
Thanks for your response.
Ludovic.
More information about the linux-mtd
mailing list