Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:10:19 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org, mfouts@danger.com Subject: Re: Flash disks and FFS layout heuristics Message-ID: <20080402.131019.-705186138.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <200804012226.m31MQ42O042173@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200804012010.m31KAMpu041011@apollo.backplane.com> <B95CEC1093787C4DB3655EF330984818051D1D@EXCHANGE.danger.com> <200804012226.m31MQ42O042173@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <200804012226.m31MQ42O042173@apollo.backplane.com>
Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> writes:
:
: :> 64MB is tiny. None of the problems with any of the=20
: :> approachs we've discussed even exist with devices that small in an=20
: :> embedded system.
: :
: :It is fairly clear that you're not familiar with NAND devices on
: :embedded systems, as you've just said that well known problems do not
: :exist.
: :
: :> To be clear, because I really don't understand how you=20
: :> can possibly argue that the named-block storage layer is bad in a=20
: :> device that small...
: :
: :Yes, your lack of understanding is very apparent.
:
: What complete bullshit. If you want to argue technical merits, be
: my guest. So far you haven't made one single technical point in
: any of your postings. You've posted about your experience with NAND
AHEM! Matt, you will keep a civil tongue, or you will be asked to
leave the list. This goes for everybody else too.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080402.131019.-705186138.imp>