Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 12:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Jörn Engel wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to > > > > the name than either of its predecessors :) > > > > > > Did you ever see akpm's facial expression when he tried to pronounce > > > "JFFS2"? ;) > > > > JFFS3 is a good, meaningful name to anyone familiar with JFFS2. > > > > But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash > > filesystem.... ;-) > > The problem is that JFFS2 will always be faster in terms of I/O speed > anyway, just because it does not have to maintain on-flash indexing > data structures. But yes, it is slow in mount and in building big > inodes, so the "faster" is confusing. Is LogFS really slower than JFFS2 in practice? I would have guessed reads to be a similar speed, tree updates to be a similar speed to journal updates for sustained non-fsyncing writes, and the difference unimportant for tiny individual commits whose index updates are not merged with any other. I've not thought about it much though. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
