Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: ext2fs
From: George Michaelson (ggm_at_apnic.net)
Date: 2003-04-27


One reason might be host level filestore efficiency.

I put a UFS partition on the back of my ajr and can write data to it about 2x
faster than to the FAT32 partition, because NetBSD does a damn sight better at
caching/write-through to UFS than to FAT32.

And, its considerably more crashproof (based on experience on hosts)

As a device in itself, there probably wouldn't be much in it, except possibly
more efficient block/frag size tunings, and maybe, some damn fine code from the
Linux and BSD camps.

Size? not an issue. UFS is whats used in many lightweight RTOS. It was small
enough as FFS to fit in pdp-11s.

I think you may have overstated the code cost, vs the benefits a bit in FAT32s
favour.

I've probably tended the other way.

cheers
        -George

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:57:02 +0200 Björn Stenberg <bjorn_at_haxx.se> wrote:

> Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > I was wondering if there is a reason not to implement ext2fs on
> > rockbox.
>
> Turn it around instead. Is there a reason to implement ext2fs?
>
> The archos.mod/ajbrec.ajz has to be on a fat partition, because that's all the
> ROM firmware understands. But even if we had a boot partition and a data
> partition, what would the gain be? ext2 is a _lot_ more complex than fat32,
> needing more and bigger code. What would the advantage be?
>
> --
> Björn

-- 
George Michaelson       |  APNIC
Email: ggm_at_apnic.net    |  PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064
Phone: +61 7 3367 0490  |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3367 0482  |  http://www.apnic.net



Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa