[Cerowrt-devel] Is there a particular reason cerowrt isn't using UBIFS?

Dave Taht dave.taht at gmail.com
Sat Aug 30 17:57:05 EDT 2014

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" <tytso at mit.edu> 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 at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20140830/154cd9e1/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Cerowrt-devel mailing list