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,
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
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 you
Joel Stanley wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 5:55 PM, Ivan Krstić krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu
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
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
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)
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, on
the
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
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
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 is
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
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 scenario
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, 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
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
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 /boot,
16 matches
Mail list logo
