Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755416AbYJHQjR (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:39:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754515AbYJHQjF (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:39:05 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:49454 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753167AbYJHQjE (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:39:04 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Stefan Monnier Subject: Filesystem for block devices using flash storage? Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:38:51 -0400 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206-248-129-247.dsl.teksavvy.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:1TPMpYS4yMwWAzu+7CEqPcEynsg= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1014 Lines: 20 Google finds some people asking this same question, but I couldn't find any answer to it: what filesystem is recommended to use on an flash based disk that does not give access to the MTD layer (e.g. USB keys, most SSDs, ...)? Since they do their own wear-levelling, any filesystem should be "safe", but I expect there is still a lot of variance in terms of performance, wear, robustness, ... Has anyone conducted serious experiemnts to try and find out what works better? Also, since it appears that such devices are here to stay, would there be a need to design a new filesystem or to tune existing filesystems for this particular kind of device? Or is there some hope for SSDs to provide access to the MTD layer in the not too distant future? Stefan -- 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/