Philip Rushik on 10 Jul 2016 13:30:37 -0700

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] Filesystem recommendations for very small flash partitions.

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Rich Freeman <> wrote:
> 100mb is really just a normal-sized filesystem.  You don't REALLY need
> to do anything special to accomodate it.  If you were trying to create
> a 64kb filesystem then, sure, I'd be really concerned about picking
> something where the superblocks don't eat up all your space.
> So, the most conservative solution would be to stick with ext4.
> However, on flash in general (especially if you don't mind something
> experimental) F2FS should have some benefits in terms of wear leveling
> and trim performance (you're overwriting in place otherwise, which is
> probably worst-case for flash).  However, we're still talking about a
> tiny file on a filesystem that is 99.99% free space, so I can't
> imagine that trim will slow things down all that much.
> F2FS is another one of those topics that is probably worth a talk.
> Main downside is that you don't have all the benefits of ZFS/btrfs.
> However, it is a really sound design for an SSD since it is tailored
> to the strengths/weaknesses of the hardware.

Yeah, I guess 100mb isn't that small. I wanted to have some extra
space in the likely case that I will add more functionality later. I
was more worried about the frequent small writes and mounts. Anyways,
It looks like F2FS is pretty much what I'm looking for, and the kernel
I'm running already supports it, so I'm going to roll with that for
now. Thanks for the advice, I hadn't heard of F2FS before, just JFFS
and YAFFS, which are not supported by my kernel, and F2FS seems more
like what I was looking for.

Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --