From: hong z. <hen...@ya...> - 2010-05-27 16:10:16
|
List, Currently my overo board boots from microSD. But I want to boot from NAND that I think will reduce booting time. Size of my rootfs is 194MBytes. But I do not know what size of nand is? Could you please tell me if 194M Bytes is too big for nand? May I get benefit to boot from nand? Thanks advance. --henry |
From: Victhor <vic...@gm...> - 2010-05-27 16:33:33
|
256 MB. IMHO the NAND is slower than microSD. > List, > > Currently my overo board boots from microSD. But I want to boot from NAND that I think will reduce booting time. > > Size of my rootfs is 194MBytes. But I do not know what size of nand is? > Could you please tell me if 194M Bytes is too big for nand? > May I get benefit to boot from nand? > > Thanks advance. > > --henry > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users |
From: hong z. <hen...@ya...> - 2010-05-27 16:47:39
|
Victhor, If NAND is slower than microSD why people still use NAND? ---henry --- On Thu, 5/27/10, Victhor <vic...@gm...> wrote: > From: Victhor <vic...@gm...> > Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] size of nand > To: "General mailing list for gumstix users." <gum...@li...> > Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 11:32 AM > 256 MB. IMHO the NAND is slower than > microSD. > > List, > > > > Currently my overo board boots from microSD. But I > want to boot from NAND that I think will reduce booting > time. > > > > Size of my rootfs is 194MBytes. But I do not know what > size of nand is? > > Could you please tell me if 194M Bytes is too big for > nand? > > May I get benefit to boot from nand? > > > > Thanks advance. > > > > --henry > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gumstix-users mailing list > > gum...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Victhor <vic...@gm...> - 2010-05-27 17:15:11
|
Maybe to have more space on the microSD, allow it to be removed while the system is running, etc. > Victhor, > > If NAND is slower than microSD why people still use NAND? > > ---henry > > --- On Thu, 5/27/10, Victhor <vic...@gm...> wrote: > > > From: Victhor <vic...@gm...> > > Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] size of nand > > To: "General mailing list for gumstix users." <gum...@li...> > > Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 11:32 AM > > 256 MB. IMHO the NAND is slower than > > microSD. > > > List, > > > > > > Currently my overo board boots from microSD. But I > > want to boot from NAND that I think will reduce booting > > time. > > > > > > Size of my rootfs is 194MBytes. But I do not know what > > size of nand is? > > > Could you please tell me if 194M Bytes is too big for > > nand? > > > May I get benefit to boot from nand? > > > > > > Thanks advance. > > > > > > --henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > gumstix-users mailing list > > > gum...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gumstix-users mailing list > > gum...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users |
From: Elvis D. <elv...@ma...> - 2010-05-27 21:18:22
|
Hi, On May 27, 2010, at 8:10 PM, hong zhang wrote: > Size of my rootfs is 194MBytes. But I do not know what size of nand is? > Could you please tell me if 194M Bytes is too big for nand? > May I get benefit to boot from nand? You have 256 MB for NAND memory. Best regards, Elvis Dowson |
From: Elvis D. <elv...@ma...> - 2010-05-27 21:19:27
|
On May 27, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Victhor wrote: > 256 MB. IMHO the NAND is slower than microSD. The NAND device is faster. Best regards, Elvis Dowson |
From: hong z. <hen...@ya...> - 2010-05-27 23:34:10
|
Elvis, Do you use both microSD and NAND to boot? It is interesting to know which one is faster. ---henry --- On Thu, 5/27/10, Elvis Dowson <elv...@ma...> wrote: > From: Elvis Dowson <elv...@ma...> > Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] size of nand > To: "General mailing list for gumstix users." <gum...@li...> > Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 4:19 PM > > On May 27, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Victhor wrote: > > > 256 MB. IMHO the NAND is slower than microSD. > > The NAND device is faster. > > Best regards, > > Elvis Dowson > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Elvis D. <elv...@ma...> - 2010-05-28 04:03:40
|
On May 28, 2010, at 3:34 AM, hong zhang wrote: > Do you use both microSD and NAND to boot? No, just one at a time, either only microSD or NAND to boot an image. > It is interesting to know which one is faster. The current Micron MCP PoP device has a clock rate of 200Mhz and a theoretical throughput rate of 400 Mb/s which is around 50MB/s. If I use SanDisk Premier 2GB microSD cards (Class 4 rating), it gives me a write performance of 10.7MB/s. This figure can go near 12MB/s. Here is a quick way to test the performance of the existing microSD cards that you are using: Testing write performance cd <mmc mount directory> date ; dd if=/dev/zero of=100M bs=1M count=100 ; sync ;date Write performance test results: root@overo:/# date ; dd if=/dev/zero of=100M bs=1M count=100 ; sync ;date Wed Jul 29 02:01:04 UTC 2009 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 9.81067 s, 10.7 MB/s Flush the cache echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop-caches Ensure that you flush the cache before doing a read test, else you will get an abnormally high read performance of around 163MB/s. Testing read performance cd <mmc mount directory> date ; dd if=100M of=/dev/null bs=1M ; sync;date Note that the input file 100M must be present in the current directory Command format dd if=d43 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=100 where, if = input file, it can be anything. Normally for cleaner performance figures we choose /dev/null in case of read. Of = output file, it can be anything. Normally for cleaner performance figures we choose /dev/null in case of write. Bs = read or write number of bytes at a time. Count = number of such "bs" In a similar manner, you could test the performance of the onboard NAND by booting from microSD, mount the NAND flash partition and then try to repeat the same read write test on the NAND memory device. Best regards, Elvis Dowson |
From: Victhor <vic...@gm...> - 2010-05-27 21:30:29
|
Is it? My boot times are always faster on microSD than on NAND. > On May 27, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Victhor wrote: > > > 256 MB. IMHO the NAND is slower than microSD. > > The NAND device is faster. > > Best regards, > > Elvis Dowson > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2010-05-27 23:53:40
|
Hi guys, On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Victhor <vic...@gm...> wrote: > Is it? My boot times are always faster on microSD than on NAND. And different filesystems are being used. You might be comparing the startup speed of jffs2 versus the speed of ext2, which doesn't really have anything to do with the speed of the NAND. -- Dave Hylands Shuswap, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |
From: Victhor <vic...@gm...> - 2010-05-28 00:00:24
|
Yes, I never actually had the will to run hdparm on both. :) > Hi guys, > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Victhor <vic...@gm...> wrote: > > Is it? My boot times are always faster on microSD than on NAND. > > And different filesystems are being used. > > You might be comparing the startup speed of jffs2 versus the speed of > ext2, which doesn't really have anything to do with the speed of the > NAND. > |
From: hong z. <hen...@ya...> - 2010-05-28 00:43:28
|
Dave, Can NAND support ext2 or ext3? --henry --- On Thu, 5/27/10, Dave Hylands <dhy...@gm...> wrote: > From: Dave Hylands <dhy...@gm...> > Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] size of nand > To: "General mailing list for gumstix users." <gum...@li...> > Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 6:53 PM > Hi guys, > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Victhor <vic...@gm...> > wrote: > > Is it? My boot times are always faster on microSD than > on NAND. > > And different filesystems are being used. > > You might be comparing the startup speed of jffs2 versus > the speed of > ext2, which doesn't really have anything to do with the > speed of the > NAND. > > -- > Dave Hylands > Shuswap, BC, Canada > http://www.DaveHylands.com/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2010-05-28 02:30:35
|
Hi Henry, On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:43 PM, hong zhang <hen...@ya...> wrote: > Dave, > > Can NAND support ext2 or ext3? I think that it can, but it isn't recommended since you won't get wear levelling and you'll wind up wearing out blocks prematurely. -- Dave Hylands Shuswap, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |