Fernando Martins wrote: [...] > Anyway, I'm also inclined for FAT, mostly for the simplicity (thus "less > susceptibility to corruption") and universality of the fs. I'm just left > wondering about performance, in particular as a storage for maps.
Maps will be read-mostly, right? So ext2 and ext3 will have the same performance, the journal will only cost some performance when writing. You can customize the ext2/3 filesystems. The block size can be 1k, 2k or 4k. Bigger blocks generally have the best performance, but if many tiles are smaller than 2k, then a 2k block size will let you fit more on the card. It is years since I made a FAT filesystem, I got the impression that you cannot have small (4k) blocks on a too large device. If the blocks are much bigger than your average file size, then you wast lots of space per file. I use 4k blocks as most tiles are bigger than 2k, except for the many copies of "the completely blank tile". The many blank tiles can be fixed by a script that turns them all into symlinks into the same file - saving lots of space. (0k instead of 4k per blank tile). FAT does not offer links, so you must have one file for each blank tile. Helge Hafting _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
