Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: ext2fs
From: Alexandre Belloni <abelloni_at_nerim.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 03:01:43 +0200
George Michaelson <ggm_at_apnic.net> writes:
> One reason might be host level filestore efficiency.
But the fact the jukebox needs a FAT32 partition to boot is a
sufficient reason not to implement another filesystem.
> 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.
Let's try the patch from Björn :)
> 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.
Size is an issue because we need both fat32 and the other fs support
and currently there is no room to add code like that. It seems I had a
bad idea but I think I will try to implement it just for fun :)
Is it the boot loader that limits the size to 200 KB ?
-- AlexReceived on 2003-04-27