Subject: Re: NAND flash support
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Toru Nishimura <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/14/2007 11:01:14
> May I join you in your howl? I too am skeptic about FTL.
A flock of howling wolves is, terifying, or plain annoying for public,
> that the
> commercial file systems that we use are organized around an FTL --
> even though they have a file system that is optimized for NAND use.
That's because commercial advertisements need the words.
We can see a myriad of "filesys" SW products around. Some of them are
little beyond "access library" which claims "POSIX complaint." Others are
re-do of FAT filesys. FAT is, in essence, the name of layout, and the
un-escapable vulnerability can be eased by careful analysis to identify
the critical stage to potentially destroy the whole FS at once. That's
known a managed ordered write for risk. Then, it's an instance of
implementation, not a layout.
Filesys stands with the whole OS background and technology context.
We should consider such the commercial products are aimed toward "add-on"
for small scale computer-alike products. I feel, again, an irony that the
demand for NAND flash filesys has been escalating when mega pixel imaging
device market requires hundreds MHz 32bit RISC SoC and GB class storage.
Toru Nishimura/ALKYL Technology