I have heard a lot that YAFFS garbage collection is faster, but I need to write a test to get some numbers. I wonder if we have some test problem to collect garbage collection numbers.<br><br>By the way, "mount /dev/mtdblock4 /mnt -t yaffs" works for me, but "mount /dev/mtdblock4 /mnt -t yaffs2" does not. I received something like this for yaffs2:<br># flash_eraseall /dev/mtd4 <br>Erasing 16 Kibyte @ 2b04000 -- 70 % complete. <br>Skipping bad block at 0x02b08000 <br>Erasing 16 Kibyte @ 2bf0000 -- 71 % complete. <br>Skipping bad block at 0x02bf4000 <br>Erasing 16 Kibyte @ 2c54000 -- 72 % complete. <br>Skipping bad block at 0x02c58000 <br>Erasing 16 Kibyte @ 2cdc000 -- 73 % complete. <br>Skipping bad block at 0x02ce0000 <br>Erasing 16 Kibyte @ 3d4c000 -- 99 % complete. <br># mount /dev/mtdblock4 /mnt -t yaffs2 <br>mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/mtdblock4, <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or too many mounted file systems
 <br><br>Ceco<br><br><b><i>Vitaly Wool &lt;vitalywool@gmail.com&gt;</i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> On 9/5/06, goog long <cecolong@yahoo.com> wrote:<br>&gt; Could someone tell me how to characterize YAFFS garbage collection? How can<br>&gt; we tell YAFFS garbabe collection is faster or slower than JFFS2?<br><br>As YAFFS is a purely NAND filesystem and is not to deal with NOR<br>flashes with longer erase times as opposed to JFFS2, its GC is<br>simpler/faster.<br><br>Vitaly<br></cecolong@yahoo.com></blockquote><br><p>&#32;
		<hr size=1>How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com"> PC-to-Phone call rates.