From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May 25 18:46:19 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE9516B5CB
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 25 May 2006 18:46:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jd@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Received: from groat.ugcs.caltech.edu (groat.ugcs.caltech.edu
	[131.215.176.110])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E9443D53
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 25 May 2006 18:46:19 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from jd@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Received: by groat.ugcs.caltech.edu (Postfix, from userid 3640)
	id 49D725880B; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:46:18 -0700
From: Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu>
To: Olivier Gautherot <olivier@gautherot.net>
Message-ID: <20060525184618.GC28128@groat.ugcs.caltech.edu>
References: <3981.1148578569@critter.freebsd.dk> <4475EFC1.1020504@nortel.com>
	<1148580598.4475f2f677197@imp2-g19.free.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1148580598.4475f2f677197@imp2-g19.free.fr>
Sender: jd@ugcs.caltech.edu
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD's embedded agenda
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 18:46:25 -0000

>From Olivier Gautherot <olivier@gautherot.net>, Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:09:58PM +0200:
> Don't forget that Flash doesn't suffer from mechanical delays so there
> is no harm in fragmenting the filesystem: this would be another feature.
This statement is false + you give the reason why only a few steps earlier:

> (what FFS doesn't naturally do). Also, there is a constraint regarding
> the changes allowed: on NAND flash, you can write a 0 on a bit but have
> to erase the full block to write a 1 back.
Erase cycles are often 1ms in duration.

                       Paul