Thread: [Under consideration] Remove 256MB limitation of the rootfs partition in the N900
View Single Post
shadowjk is offline shadowjk
2010-02-10 , 14:18
Posts: 1,258 | Thanked: 672 times | Joined on Mar 2009
#55
Originally Posted by titan View Post
regarding performance: on a HDD nilfs2 performance was not so great
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...s_nilfs2&num=1
Harddrives have very different performance than flash devices. Benchmarks on harddrives aren't comparable with benchmarks on mmc type flash. Benchmarks on the proper SSDs aren't comparable either.

My benchmarks http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php...332#post504332
showed that real fs performance on NAND is not that much better than eMMC:
in the best case (compressed zero data) seq. write was 8 vs. 24 MB/s, seq read
19 vs. 30MB/s but with much higher CPU load for UBIFS.
The table is a bit hard to read without fixed-width formatting, but isn't there over 5 times performance difference in the nand's favor? 5573 against the best, 970 fatpart?

Sequential read/write is a meaningless measure for anything except single-tasking video use...

The issues with mmc is kinda the same as with first generation SSDs, but worse. While they have sequential read speeds of hundreds of megabytes/s, and the OS boot "test" shows ok results, in real use they made the system "stutter". anandtech.com has an excellent series of articles on it...