Yeah, that seems like a killer.  Wear-leveled FAT, it is.  They don't support something like JFFS2, do they?  Probably overkill...

Greg


Mark Webb-Johnson wrote:
OK, I looked into this is more detail…

Notes

  • Presently, spiffs does not support directories. It produces a flat structure. If SPIFFS is mounted under /spiffs creating a file with path /spiffs/tmp/myfile.txt will create a file called /tmp/myfile.txt in SPIFFS, instead of myfile.txt under directory /spiffs/tmp.
  • It is not a realtime stack. One write operation might last much longer than another.
  • Presently, it does not detect or handle bad blocks.
Maybe not… It seems that for our use-case, the wear levelled FAT maybe more suitable.

Mark

On 19 Jan 2018, at 11:23 AM, Greg D. <gregd2350@gmail.com> wrote:

Assuming the new file system is stable, we should move to it.  Remind
me the syntax for scp...  we're using v1, right?

Just warn us when the change is checked in...

Greg


Mark Webb-Johnson wrote:
ESP IDF 2.1 only had FAT support as a filesystem. We used this for the /store vfs mount, for config and script storage.

ESP IDF 3.x now has SPIFFS as an option.

SPIFFS is obviously more suited to embedded flash.

What do people think about making the switch to SPIFFS for /store now?

Doing so would probably not be hard (just a few lines of code change in the mounting of that /store partition), but would lose all config and script data in that partition (developers would have to disable vfs protection in menuconfig, then scp out first, to backup).

Doing it later is not really an option.

Thoughts?

Mark

_______________________________________________
OvmsDev mailing list
OvmsDev@lists.teslaclub.hk
http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev

_______________________________________________
OvmsDev mailing list
OvmsDev@lists.teslaclub.hk
http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev



_______________________________________________
OvmsDev mailing list
OvmsDev@lists.teslaclub.hk
http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev