Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 6th Oct 2012 13:59 UTC, submitted by robojerk
Thread beginning with comment 537746
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-15
Was there really a need to invent yet another wheel?
Been a while since I looked into flash-specific filesystems, so I may remember wrongly that the three above are also Flash FS's.
Is this another case of Not Invented Here, or does F2FS have merit?
As far as I know both UBIFS and YAFFS are designed to be used with raw flash-chips whereas F2Fs is designed to work well in conjunction with flash-devices with FTL. The needs and optimization techniques are different and with careful planning of the filesystem the FTL can handle all the low-level details while still providing excellent speeds and reliability for a flash-friendly filesystem.
The whole point as I see it is that this allows one to separate the actual low-level hardware details from the operation of the filesystem, allowing you to improve/work on either one of those separately without having to re-design the whole thing every single time or for every new development in the hardware.
Edited 2012-10-07 04:54 UTC