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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
