It kills the stick faster.
Guess you should use 'noatime' then, or at least 'relatime' when mounting.
Originally Posted by curaga
relatime has been the linux default for several releases now.
So if I don't specify 'relatime' in /etc/fstab, it will still use relatime?
Originally Posted by curaga
Even for hard disk devices such as sd[abcd] ?
My /etc/fstab has relatime for my /dev/sda which is an solid-state drive. Can I remove relatime from /etc/fstab and it still use relatime?
It depends on your distro (can be tuned in the kernel config), but the linux default is relatime for all drives.
mkfs.ext4 -O ^has_journal & noatime
I actually format the sticks in ext4 WITHOUT journal (-O ^has_journal) which is better than using ext2/3.
Originally Posted by uid313
noatime is also a must, and i use it everywhere. I don't care when was the last time i opened a file, those are unwanted writes.
relatime only delays the writes, noatime is a must to avoid stupid writes when reading files.
Last edited by Artemis3; 08-20-2012 at 02:14 PM.
i think you mean 1%, thereis a massive universe of portable/low power/specific devices out there outside your ipod and your digital cam and no one in its right mind is going to write a driver to access the low level infrastructure of a portable/industrial device to start with and this was not designed to replace your pendrive FS either but more for very restrained enviroments like arduino or another ULP arm microcontroller that only need to write small chunks of data before transmit[tcp/rs-232/usb/etc] saving as many cycles as possible, especially in many industrial sensors or servos when ext2/3/4 is like kill flie with a tomahawk missile.
Originally Posted by DMJC
now on the pc/server market is true i don't see it useful in any way but for the industrial and ULP microcontroller can prove to be useful or at least used as base reference implementation for custom low cycle FS in this devices
"Linux already has ~50 filesystems most of which are useless outside of their niches due to lack of interop" so?? i don't see the logic in interop at all since each of those fulfill a very different scenario and are not meant to be used for average joe's from the ground up and if you are referring to extX,xfs,btrfs, etc[the desktop/server grade FS] they work perfectly fine in linux, is apple and microsoft decision if they wanna provide support linux with their FS or allow a linux one used in their OS.
and no microsoft has not help ntfs/fat/etc. outside windows either it was reversed[and i think they tried to sue linux for it]
I find that transparent compression a la btrfs is good for flash drives as well as noatime. With transparent compression you read/write less data and the relative CPU time needed to compress/decompress is negligible, even if you use an expensive algorithm like LZMA.
Wouldn't that still be a net negative for changing files?
Originally Posted by allquixotic
ie, change one word in a big text doc. Only that erase block changes.
If the FS is compressed, that block and all blocks after it would change.
*all blocks after it that have the file.
Editing still broken yada yada.