Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: ext2fs
From: Björn Stenberg <bjorn_at_haxx.se>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:26:19 +0200
George Michaelson wrote:
> 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.
That is a netbsd issue, not a rockbox issue...
> I think you may have overstated the code cost, vs the benefits a bit in
> FAT32s favour. I've probably tended the other way.
If I'd had the luxury of choosing file system, fat32 would still be my choice. Why? One word: interoperability. There is no other suitable file system that is supported on so many platforms.
Your arguments center around powerful computers, not the actual device we're discussing. Speed? The archos is an MP3 player, it needs to load a megabyte per minute. Block optimization? 99% of all files stored on the disk are several megabytes each. Crash proof? We hardly ever write to the file system.
And any argument about code size is null and void since we will always need the fat32 code to read the boot disk. So even a 2 KB driver is 2 KB more than today.
-- BjörnReceived on 2003-04-27