[UBI] UFFS : Unified Flash File System
onlyflyer at gmail.com
Mon Nov 24 20:30:57 EST 2008
This is interesting. I have some questions about UFFS:
1)UFFS can work both with bare flash(MTD or UBI) and FTL(as a block
device), how do you organize the metadata of UFFS(log-structured?).
2)As we know, bare flash and FTL provide very different interfaces for
FS. For MTD, FS should do garbage collection, wear leveling, bad block
management by itself; For UBI, FS should also do garbage collection
and wear leveling; and for FTL, FS just treat flash as block device.
What will UFFS do to treat all of kind of interfaces? Will UFFS
provide different strategy for different interfaces?
Thanks & Best Regards
2008/11/25 Sidney Amani <seed95 at gmail.com>:
> We are forth year Epitech (www.epitech.eu) students, our six member
> team plan to use and maybe improve UBI as part of our end studies
> Our project is UFFS for Unified Flash File System, Unified because it
> is going to allow mounting any kind of NAND Flash Memory, this means
> any bare Flash or Flash on top of FTL.
> It is also going to be ported on several operating systems, we plan to
> supported on Fuse (Linux, *BSD, MacOs-X) and Windows and Linux (as a
> Kernel module).
> / | \
> Block | |\
> | | | \
> FTL | | \
> |\____/ | \
> | | | |
> | UBI | |
> \ \ | |
> \ \_| |
> \ | |
> \ MTD |
> This scheme means if UBI is available we use it but if it's not
> (WinCE) we have to develop a UBI-Like layer.
> We contactyou to let you know about our intention and maybe get any
> information about some work in progresss of UBI related project?
> Has someone heard about a WinCe UBIFS version?
> What do you think about our project?
> Any suggestion will be welcomed.
> Sidney Amani
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
More information about the linux-mtd