Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: ext2fs
From: George Michaelson <ggm_at_apnic.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 09:31:26 +1000
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
I've probably tended the other way.
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?
-- 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.netReceived on 2003-04-27