Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760693AbXEPM2l (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 08:28:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757465AbXEPM2c (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 08:28:32 -0400 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:36241 "EHLO mail.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756824AbXEPM2b (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 08:28:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:25:48 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Artem Bityutskiy Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel , akpm@osdl.org, Evgeniy Polyakov , Albert Cahalan , Greg KH , John Stoffel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Oeser , Pekka Enberg , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Jan Engelhardt , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three Message-ID: <20070516122548.GA25239@mail.shareable.org> References: <20070515151919.GA32510@lazybastard.org> <17994.1241.436841.681216@stoffel.org> <20070515191926.GB1220@lazybastard.org> <1179291255.2859.195.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20070516110933.GA5472@lazybastard.org> <20070516113434.GC20482@mail.shareable.org> <1179315498.3642.19.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1179315498.3642.19.camel@sauron> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1418 Lines: 34 Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 12:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > J?rn Engel wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to > > > > the name than either of its predecessors :) > > > > > > Did you ever see akpm's facial expression when he tried to pronounce > > > "JFFS2"? ;) > > > > JFFS3 is a good, meaningful name to anyone familiar with JFFS2. > > > > But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash > > filesystem.... ;-) > > The problem is that JFFS2 will always be faster in terms of I/O speed > anyway, just because it does not have to maintain on-flash indexing > data structures. But yes, it is slow in mount and in building big > inodes, so the "faster" is confusing. Is LogFS really slower than JFFS2 in practice? I would have guessed reads to be a similar speed, tree updates to be a similar speed to journal updates for sustained non-fsyncing writes, and the difference unimportant for tiny individual commits whose index updates are not merged with any other. I've not thought about it much though. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/