On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:08 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
False. There is.
False. They do have connection.
First off, I see these no big deal statements for years already, and no
decent implementation proved by usage in real world. Could we please,
move these academic discussions to another thread?
Second, it is much more robust to kip erase counter and mapping
information on per-eraseblock basis then to keep any on-flash table -
you may always scan whole media and gracefully recover from errors and
corruptions. And you do not loose use a lot in case of corruptions.
Third, it is much simpler then keeping any on-flash table, it is thus
robust. We do not need a journal to update any table.
Third, if needed, on-flash table may be _added_ to increase scalability,
so "since you have to scan flash anyway" may become false when there is
real need in better scalability. For now scanning is OK. And still,
scanning method will be a good fall-back way to recover from errors.
You are welcome to discuss other irrelevant things to this thread.
--
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)
-