On 6/22/05, Charles Manning <
manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
<snip>
> There is nothing technically wrong with using block zero from a memory/NAND
> perspective. At the end of the day, file system integrity is governed by the
> performance of the worst block and not the best block. Block zero is only
> guaranteed good at the time of shipping and can go bad with time. Also,
> many/most systems use block zero for some other purpose (eg. boot data or bad
> block marker). Thus, relying on chunk zero being good is pointless.
Is it that the code in the block 0 can be executed in place for
booting? We may consider supporting partitions.
As to bad block marker issue, using a fixed block for that purpose is
against wear leveling and not reliable. Bad block information always
can be gathered through oob area.
--
Coywolf Qi Hunt
http://ahbl.org/~coywolf/
(text/plain)