Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756577AbXEQM2Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 08:28:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753689AbXEQM2R (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 08:28:17 -0400 Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170]:43154 "EHLO longford.lazybastard.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754492AbXEQM2P (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2007 08:28:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:05:21 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: David Woodhouse Cc: Dongjun Shin , Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Albert Cahalan , Thomas Gleixner , Jan Engelhardt , Evgeniy Polyakov , Pekka Enberg , Greg KH , Ingo Oeser Subject: Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three Message-ID: <20070517120520.GA15676@lazybastard.org> References: <20070515151919.GA32510@lazybastard.org> <20070515133759.9ee434a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1179317240.2859.222.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20070516083408.dcd9dd78.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1179330596.2859.248.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20070516164158.GB8113@lazybastard.org> <7fe698080705162312t4e7ed90byd10ef8e664027b17@mail.gmail.com> <1179383117.2859.416.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <7fe698080705170120w18fe5521oa685cf248a45e1c6@mail.gmail.com> <1179391440.2859.447.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1179391440.2859.447.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1231 Lines: 31 On Thu, 17 May 2007 16:43:59 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > As I mentioned, some techniques like log-structured filesystem could > > perform generally better on any kind of flash-based storage with FTL. > > Although there are many kinds of FTL, it is commonly true that > > it performs well under workload where sequential write is dominant. > > Yes, it's certainly possible that we _could_ write a file system which > is specifically targeted at FTL -- I was just wondering why anyone would > _bother_ :) Haven't you done that already? JFFS2 write behaviour is the best-case scenario for any FTL. When the delta cache is finished, LogFS will be pretty close to that as well. Not sure if anyone would specifically target FTL. Being well-suited for those beasts is just a side-effect. The FTL is still a net loss. Without that FAT enabling layer a real flash filesystem would be more efficient. Jörn -- Prosperity makes friends, adversity tries them. -- Publilius Syrus - 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/