The main reason you have gotten no feedback is because we are ultra-busy
right now with mass-production and other issues.
I have been looking into partitioning schemes for some time now. We
need to have a discussion about this, but now is not the time.
Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Hello Mitch,
>
John Watlington wrote:
> I know what a write-back buffer is...
>
> But I would never characterize a filesystem's write
> throughput as the peak bandwidth when writing
> into the buffer. (That's a marketing trick.)
We neither.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
_
I know what a write-back buffer is...
But I would never characterize a filesystem's write
throughput as the peak bandwidth when writing
into the buffer. (That's a marketing trick.)
Extended writes either fill up memory or degrade to
a number which is more reasonable to compare to
the write band
Joel Stanley wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 5:55 PM, Ivan Krstić
> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Joel Stanley wrote:
> > > JFFS2 has done an excellent job, at least on my xos, of keeping
> > > filesystem integrity after sudden power-offs.
> >
> > Write-back caching does not adversely affect f
ext Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>
>> but unfortunately have not got feedback, and I suspect one of the reasons is
>> that it is too difficult to boot UBIFS on XO.
>
> It would be great to have a demo OS image using UBIFS. I can't
> help for the partitioning thing, but if
Joel Stanley wrote:
> It makes a hello of a lot of sense in the scenario you describe.
>
> However, how will this positive effect be negated by data loss due to
> loss of power? There will be times where power is unexpectedly
> removed, and I would expect this scenario to be common with our user
>
On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:44 AM, Joel Stanley wrote:
> That would be cool. But I think there would as many, maybe more, cases
> of batteries being removed, power cords yanked, and generators turning
> off causing shutdowns than low-battery issues.
Batteries getting removed with no AC should not be a v
On Dec 17, 2007 5:55 PM, Ivan Krstić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Joel Stanley wrote:
> > JFFS2 has done an excellent job, at least on my xos, of keeping
> > filesystem integrity after sudden power-offs.
>
> Write-back caching does not adversely affect filesystem *integ
Joel Stanley wrote:
> However, how will this positive effect be negated by data loss due to
> loss of power? There will be times where power is unexpectedly
> removed, and I would expect this scenario to be common with our user
> base.
The semantics of the UNIX filesystem have always been that
wr
On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Joel Stanley wrote:
> JFFS2 has done an excellent job, at least on my xos, of keeping
> filesystem integrity after sudden power-offs.
Write-back caching does not adversely affect filesystem *integrity*.
It makes a tradeoff by reducing flash write/erase frequency and
On Dec 17, 2007 4:46 PM, Ivan Krstić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This makes a hell of a lot of sense. In a synchronous filesystem like
> JFFS2, constant and repeated writes to the same single page will keep
> pummeling the underlying flash needlessly
It makes a hello of a lot of sense in the scen
On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:40 PM, John Watlington wrote:
> I'm curious how you measured this, as the underlying hardware only
> supports a max. transfer rate of around 20 MiB/s...
As Artem mentioned, UBIFS employs a write-back cache, meaning writes
aren't flushed to the underlying medium immediatel
Hi,
>> Vs. goal 2: UBIFS write speed is about 70MiB/second, because of
>> the write-back support. IOW, UBIFS is similar to traditional FSes
>> like ext2, which have internal buffers and make writes fast. To
>> compare, JFFS2 write speed on XO is about 1.3 MiB/s, because it is
>> alw
On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:08 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Vs. goal 2: UBIFS write speed is about 70MiB/second, because of the
> write-back
> support. IOW, UBIFS is similar to traditional FSes like ext2, which
> have
> internal buffers and make writes fast. To compare, JFFS2 write
> speed on XO
Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> but unfortunately have not got feedback, and I suspect one of the reasons is
> that it is too difficult to boot UBIFS on XO.
It would be great to have a demo OS image using UBIFS. I can't
help for the partitioning thing, but if you need help with the
process of rebuild
Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> ext Walter Bender wrote:
>>> but unfortunately have not got feedback, and I suspect one of the reasons is
>>> that it is too difficult to boot UBIFS on XO.
>> I think you would be well served by making it clearer to people what
>> the goals are of UBIFS relative to existin
Mitch Bradley wrote:
> The main reason you have gotten no feedback is because we are ultra-busy
> right now with mass-production and other issues.
Yes, I understand this, and I do not complain at all.
And I understand that it is too late to change the FS on XO now, and UBIFS is
not ready for th
David Woodhouse wrote:
> http://git.infradead.org/?p=openfirmware.git;a=commitdiff;h=a0b5a7b0c
>
> OpenFirmware boots from the partition named 'boot' in the RedBoot
> partition table. The rest are yours to play with as you see fit.
Thanks David, I'll take a look at this.
--
Best Regards,
Artem
ext Walter Bender wrote:
>> but unfortunately have not got feedback, and I suspect one of the reasons is
>> that it is too difficult to boot UBIFS on XO.
>
> I think you would be well served by making it clearer to people what
> the goals are of UBIFS relative to existing systems, such as JFFS2, o
Albert Cahalan wrote:
> I don't see why you'd think so.
>
> Granted, the boot loader is in FORTH, but Mitch seems to get along
> just fine with that and he has hundreds of kilobytes to spare.
> The XO's boot loader sits in a 1 megabyte flash chip.
>
> Assuming that UBI really is good, native supp
> but unfortunately have not got feedback, and I suspect one of the reasons is
> that it is too difficult to boot UBIFS on XO.
I think you would be well served by making it clearer to people what
the goals are of UBIFS relative to existing systems, such as JFFS2, on
the XO. This may motivate more
Artem Bityutskiy writes:
> UBI/UBIFS is too large and difficult to implement their support
> in XO boot-loader.
I don't see why you'd think so.
Granted, the boot loader is in FORTH, but Mitch seems to get along
just fine with that and he has hundreds of kilobytes to spare.
The XO's boot loader s
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 09:54 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> UBI/UBIFS is too large and difficult to implement their support in XO
> boot-loader. So I plan to use the following scheme:
>
> 1. Have 2 MTD partitions - mtd0 and mtd1. mtd0 is small (say, 10MiB), and has
> JFFS2 FS. It contains /boo
Hello Mitch,
we've sent an UBIFS announcement few days ago to this mailing list:
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2007-December/008348.html
but unfortunately have not got feedback, and I suspect one of the reasons is
that it is too difficult to boot UBIFS on XO.
I'd kindly ask you to he
24 matches
Mail list logo
