Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:04:06 +0200 From: Aragon Gouveia <aragon@phat.za.net> To: Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> Cc: freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD NAND flash driver Message-ID: <49DA0BD6.5080303@phat.za.net> In-Reply-To: <20090406232508.776d57e6@fubar.geek.nz> References: <20090405175014.6aef7016@fubar.geek.nz> <20090406122410.daab24b3.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20090406232508.776d57e6@fubar.geek.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Andrew Turner wrote: > Yes, this is intentional as NAND flash is split up to blocks. The > blocks are then split into pages. You have to erase the entire block at > a time but can write pages as required. A file system that knows about > this difference will be able to talk to nand(8) directly. What I know about file systems and UFS is pretty limited, so forgive me if what follows are silly questions. Are there any defragmentation routines in UFS that could/should be disabled when using it on a flash device? I know a file system can be optimized for space or time with tunefs(8). I imagine optimizing for space would be best for a flash device? Is there anything else other than that and your work that can improve flash support? Thanks, Aragon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49DA0BD6.5080303>