From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 18 12:10:13 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210301065676 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 12:10:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from maurizio.vairani@cloverinformatica.it) Received: from smtplq04.aruba.it (smtplq-out12.aruba.it [62.149.158.32]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4EB878FC14 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 12:10:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6107 invoked by uid 89); 18 May 2012 12:10:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp6.aruba.it) (62.149.158.226) by smtplq04.aruba.it with SMTP; 18 May 2012 12:10:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 7667 invoked by uid 89); 18 May 2012 12:10:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clover.dyndns.biz) (info@cloverinformatica.it@151.55.85.84) by smtp6.ad.aruba.it with SMTP; 18 May 2012 12:10:10 -0000 Received: from [192.168.0.185] ([192.168.0.185]) by clover.dyndns.biz ; Fri, 18 May 2012 14:09:47 +0200 Message-ID: <4FB63C22.8010902@cloverinformatica.it> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 14:10:10 +0200 From: Maurizio Vairani User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 4.0; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Friesenhahn References: <201205172050.q4HKo6hK000183@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: smtp6.ad.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: smtplq04.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:10:13 -0000 On 18/05/2012 3.10, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > 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 Hi have a Root on ZFS FreeBSD 8.2 server on 3 USB Flash Disks in RAID 1 configuration. Is there any advantage using NAND FS instead of ZFS ? Thanks Maurizio