Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

[JÃrn Engel]

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.

JÃrn

-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/