How stable is jffs2 summarize option?

[Joakim Tjernlund]

David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote on 2010/06/01 12:38:57:
>
> On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 11:50 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 11:26 +0200, Thorsten Mühlfelder wrote:
> > > > and what do you think about switching to yaffs2? I know it is developed
> > > > elsewhere, but it seems to be a good alternative to jffs2+summary and
> > > > probably switching is easier than to ubifs.
> > >
> > > Why would you think that switching to something that isn't part of the
> > > Linux kernel would be easier than switching to ubifs? That seems... odd.
> >
> > Yes, if ubifs doesn't fit, perhaps have a look at the recently added
> > logfs?
> >
> >     Jocke
> >
> > BTW, I once tried JFFS2 summary and it didn't make much of a difference for us.
>
> Did you use 'sumtool' after creating your images? For reasons which are
> now lost in the mists of time, that support wasn't just added directly
> to mkfs.jffs2.

This was some years ago but I cannot recall using 'sumtool'. Also
our NOR FS is between 128 and 64 MB so perhaps it is too small to benefit
from summary?