linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com>
Cc: Steve deRosier <derosier@gmail.com>, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: ubi/ubifs performance comparison on two NAND devices
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 17:44:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3595506.DBTOofq0ZL@blindfold> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+vNU12C4va7-cCKzxHgVftZ-omODefsnzmMMjFnQtR-+ZWbQ@mail.gmail.com>

Am Freitag, 1. März 2019, 17:41:06 CET schrieb Tim Harvey:
> Steve,
> 
> I've compared erase/read/write speeds for both flashes and the Cypress
> flash is 2x slower than the Micron on a 'per-byte-size' basis (which
> is what I would expect as the datasheets have pretty much the same
> timings per 'block' but the micron has 2x larger blocks and the chips
> are the same overall size meaning the cypress would have 2x as many
> 'block' operations across the same size).
> 
> So, at a raw erase/read/write level the Cypress is 2x slower than
> Micron, but ubi-scan is 7x slower (4s to 28s), and ubifs-space-fixup
> is 100x slower (0.5s to 50s).
> 
> I guess i've made a mess of the description of the issue. I can dig in
> and find the basic flash timings the kernel is using 'but' when I test
> using flash_erase and dd for erase/read/write over say 60M I find the
> expected 2x slower performance. I just don't understand why I see a
> much slower performance at the ubi and ubifs layers.

Can we please start with decent numbers?
Is UBI really slower than expected? Or only UBIFS file read/write?

I'm still totally confused by your allegations.

Thanks,
//richard



______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

      reply	other threads:[~2019-03-01 16:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-27 20:39 ubi/ubifs performance comparison on two NAND devices Tim Harvey
2019-02-27 22:12 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-02-27 22:43   ` Tim Harvey
2019-02-27 22:59     ` Richard Weinberger
2019-02-28 16:40       ` Tim Harvey
2019-02-28 17:21         ` Steve deRosier
2019-03-01 16:41           ` Tim Harvey
2019-03-01 16:44             ` Richard Weinberger [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3595506.DBTOofq0ZL@blindfold \
    --to=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=derosier@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=tharvey@gateworks.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).