From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa0-x22c.google.com (mail-oa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30B2421F37B for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id o6so2803965oag.3 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:57:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bIz8IgFfKSuqx4eClcOfIkN1n6K8efuG+YHd6R00P9M=; b=E/TzS82UG2QYqpJX8n2/qMVkxOPrLWnK59Wjyg3eoMQffjyf6lkR2TUA8+RTrugpkh 3UPUyQBnKS6iah0NkIEM2nIb+ieS4tMa1kPQdtGKYjcuuJIEXiD+6u3j9h3L2izK84p3 xgLQxF0R8SG9gO8hPxiX9hq5G9byXai/r80sb2ZmraEjuCci+U8mgV3cR/NeBJEFNgX8 4D333HmN9/3uo6uKQ8w3zRXvmHeINHL3vhafzopcYCbPVh+m3x2ilvlPqFM8mmb+GZGJ 1lT/Ls37nhcqiTR3hEQxYsrOu73uacf4UkctcG4vTewoLTpjaTHLmtWTvP1b2xP/OPwY BRcA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.60.98 with SMTP id g2mr18210495obr.6.1409435825241; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:57:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.227.76 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:57:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.227.76 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:57:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140830213451.GA30271@thunk.org> References: <20140830213451.GA30271@thunk.org> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:57:05 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: "Theodore Ts'o" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158aaa0b285a80501dfd97e Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 21:57:06 -0000 --089e0158aaa0b285a80501dfd97e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I tried ubifs in the early days. It doesn't squeeze stuff down even as good as jffs2, so the load of cerowrt exceeded 15mbyte. It does look to be an ever more reasonable answer once you have flash sizes greater than 128mbyte. I see a lot of ext4 on much larger flashes.... A thing that irks me in the age of 4G flash becoming fairly common is the general lack of compression aside from an option to btrfs. Debian barely fits into 2 gb. On Aug 30, 2014 2:35 PM, "Theodore Ts'o" wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > --089e0158aaa0b285a80501dfd97e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I tried ubifs in the early days. It doesn't squeeze stuf= f down even as good as jffs2, so the load of cerowrt exceeded 15mbyte. It d= oes look to be an ever more reasonable answer once you have flash sizes gre= ater than 128mbyte.

I see a lot of ext4 on much larger flashes....

A thing that irks me in the age of 4G flash becoming fairly = common is the general lack of compression aside from an option to btrfs. De= bian barely fits into 2 gb.

On Aug 30, 2014 2:35 PM, "Theodore Ts'o= " <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
Potentially stupid question.=C2=A0 I was taking a look at

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/filesyst= ems

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.=C2=A0 Is there any=
particular reason why Cerowrt isn't using ubifs, or squashfs over ubi,<= br> other than purely historical and/or this wasn't the research focus of C= erowrt?

Thanks,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Ted _______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.= bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
--089e0158aaa0b285a80501dfd97e--