From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233] helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LTwUm-0005Zc-Eb for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:57:43 +0000 Subject: Re: Regarding UBI scalability From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Adrian Hunter In-Reply-To: <4986D3F6.5030208@nokia.com> References: <31956721.196931233319535527.JavaMail.weblogic@epml10> <1233567078.7085.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> <618F1BB69C6C43C895C260C527C4F159@sisodomain.com> <4986D3F6.5030208@nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:57:39 +0200 Message-Id: <1233572259.7085.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Amit Kumar Sharma , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , "brij.singh@samsung.com" Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 13:07 +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote: > I would suggest an intermediate step. Create UBI2 which is > similar to UBI but stores eraseblock information in one place, > instead of at the beginning of each eraseblock. Such an approach > might be OK up to as much as 64GiB, and would probably perform > better than a fully scalable version. > > Then look at creating UBI3, which is fully scalable. Yes, I assume UBI2 should store mapping/erasure information in separate tables, not in each eraseblock. So we should get rid of eraseblock headers. -- Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)