From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tytso@thunk.org>
Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org
	[IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe96:be03])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(Client CN "imap.thunk.org", Issuer "CAcert Class 3 Root" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CCCB21F453
	for <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>;
	Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thunk.org;
	s=ef5046eb; 
	h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date;
	bh=Z12fjMsCuEphcrfCHNzN62CeE7gHoG7+BxXydqOVf+I=; 
	b=j8p6oAziA6bNkcwDJVKVyMsYMSGSPYUi2P8ka73/lQyDap4MtCQzHYeZKg/pa92cHv7Gz4LDMkyon8HF5kwsyuZ7KsgWjyuFGSpG8y+t7Lb5Xsz+Q3Ws86l6GIRTPZswNYrK2y98Z74QYuBQ0I9c6KvJyC6j7RRbXNlwSP4VVEs=;
Received: from root (helo=closure.thunk.org)
	by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <tytso@thunk.org>)
	id 1XNqIV-0003TF-NT; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 21:34:59 +0000
Received: by closure.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806)
	id 95BE0580C83; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:34:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:34:51 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Message-ID: <20140830213451.GA30271@thunk.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] Is there a particular reason cerowrt isn't using
	UBIFS?
X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project
	<cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cerowrt-devel>,
	<mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel>,
	<mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 21:35:02 -0000

Potentially stupid question.  I was taking a look at 

	http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/filesystems

and there was discussion there about how using raw squashfs doesn't
deal with wear leveling and bad flash blocks, and that openwrt is now
using ubifs for all targets with raw NAND flash --- and my
understanding is that the WNDR 3800 uses raw NAND flash.  Is there any
particular reason why Cerowrt isn't using ubifs, or squashfs over ubi,
other than purely historical and/or this wasn't the research focus of Cerowrt?

Thanks,

					- Ted