Regarding UBI scalability

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 13:07 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> I would suggest an intermediate step.  Create UBI2 which is
> similar to UBI but stores eraseblock information in one place,
> instead of at the beginning of each eraseblock.  Such an approach
> might be OK up to as much as 64GiB, and would probably perform
> better than a fully scalable version.
> 
> Then look at creating UBI3, which is fully scalable.

Yes, I assume UBI2 should store mapping/erasure information in separate
tables, not in each eraseblock. So we should get rid of eraseblock
headers.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)