On 13/07/2011, at 10:52 PM, Dennis Groenen wrote: > On 07/13/2011 07:28 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> On Tuesday 12 July 2011 20:14, Laurent Bercot wrote: >>>> BusyBox writes to .ash_history after each and every command, which we don't >>>> want on e.g. mobile devices with a flash-based storage device. >>>> Using a buffer helps reducing the amount of erase/write cycles on the >>>> storage medium >>> Wouldn't mobile devices with flash-based storage be better off using an >>> adapted filesystem layer, such as UBI ? Patching every application to >>> avoid writing to the filesystem does not sound like the right way to >>> handle this. >> Yes, I think the approach this patch takes is not sustainable. > I agree with both of you that patching every application is a no-go. However, > a lot of flash based storage mediums are exposed as block devices nowadays, > thus UBI can't always be used. I use the shell a lot, and going trough an > erase cycle every time I press enter doesn't sound like an ideal situation. > That's why I target BusyBox specifically. > You have a home directory on a raw block device on flash? Seems like a really bad idea.
-- µWeb: Embedded Web Framework - http://uweb.workware.net.au/ WorkWare Systems Pty Ltd W: www.workware.net.au P: +61 434 921 300 E: [email protected] F: +61 7 3391 6002 _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
