From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May 18 01:14:32 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A7C1065677;
	Fri, 18 May 2012 01:14:32 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us)
Received: from blade.simplesystems.org (blade.simplesystems.org [65.66.246.74])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460428FC08;
	Fri, 18 May 2012 01:14:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from freddy.simplesystems.org (freddy.simplesystems.org
	[65.66.246.65])
	by blade.simplesystems.org (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id
	q4I1A2o7004946; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:10:02 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:10:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us>
X-X-Sender: bfriesen@freddy.simplesystems.org
To: Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <201205172050.q4HKo6hK000183@gw.catspoiler.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.2.01.1205172007270.21691@freddy.simplesystems.org>
References: <201205172050.q4HKo6hK000183@gw.catspoiler.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (GSO 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2
	(blade.simplesystems.org [65.66.246.90]);
	Thu, 17 May 2012 20:10:02 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: NAND Framework in HEAD.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 01:14:32 -0000

On Thu, 17 May 2012, Don Lewis wrote:
>
> Any thoughts on how well NAND FS might work on SSDs as compared to
> something like UFS, which isn't aware of the properties of the
> underlying storage?  I would think that avoiding random block overwrites
> would help performance and device lifetime.

Filesystems designed to work with raw NAND Flash take care of issues 
like bad block management and garbage collecting freed blocks.  These 
are functionalities already embedded in SSDs.

Even zfs avoids random block overwrites.

Bob
-- 
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/