Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933655AbXHYJMw (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:12:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933172AbXHYJMl (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:12:41 -0400 Received: from corky.net ([212.150.53.130]:42628 "EHLO zebday.corky.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932667AbXHYJMk (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:12:40 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1523 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:12:40 EDT Message-ID: <46CFEB36.9020806@corky.net> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:41:26 +0100 From: Just Marc User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: file system for solid state disks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP on CorKy.NeT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 829 Lines: 19 Hi, It's important to note that disk-replacement type SSDs perform much better with very small block operations, generally 512 bytes. So the lower your file system block size, the better -- this will be the single most significant performance tweak one should do. This is true for the benchmarks I've seen where the difference between 4KB and 512Byte block sizes was almost 100%. YMMV -- always benchmark. On SSDs which contain built in wear leveling, pretty much any file system can be used. For SSDs that lack such low level housekeeping, use stuff like JFFS2. Marc - 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/