On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 22:05 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > Guess why we still do not have a decent FTL? Because it is > _difficult_.
No. We don't have a decent FTL because it's _pointless_. We've got basic implementations of FTL, NFTL, INFTL etc. for compatibility with PCMCIA stuff and DiskOnChip, but the fact remains that pretending to be a normal block device with atomically-overwritten 512-byte sectors is just _stupid_. You end up implementing a kind of pseudo-filesystem to do that, and then on top of that you put a 'normal' filesystem with no real knowledge about what's underneath. It's crap -- and as we currently have it, the top level file system doesn't even get to tell the underlying FTL that a given block can be discarded because it's no longer used. So during garbage collection the FTL even ends up copying crap around the medium that's no longer relevant. This isn't DOS. We don't have to make our storage available through the restricted interface that INT 13h offers us. We can, and do, do better than that. And that's why we don't have a decent FTL implementation. -- dwmw2 - 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/