Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:46:18 -0700 From: Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu> To: Olivier Gautherot <olivier@gautherot.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD's embedded agenda Message-ID: <20060525184618.GC28128@groat.ugcs.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <1148580598.4475f2f677197@imp2-g19.free.fr> References: <3981.1148578569@critter.freebsd.dk> <4475EFC1.1020504@nortel.com> <1148580598.4475f2f677197@imp2-g19.free.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060525184618.GC28128>