|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: ext2fsRe: 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 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |