littlefs VS ltfs

Pointers correctly round-trip through unrelated pointer types, provided the alignment for both types is compatible.

At least one bit does look a bit questionable: lfs_mlist is treated as the common initial sequence of lfs_dir and lfs_file, even though it isn't, and common initial sequences only apply to union fields anyway. Example cast of struct dir * to struct lfs_mlist * (probably valid of itself, assuming the alignment is compatible): https://github.com/littlefs-project/littlefs/blob/c733d9ec57... then use struct dir as if it were actually a struct lfs_mlist: https://github.com/littlefs-project/littlefs/blob/c733d9ec57...

(There's other occurrences of the same kind of thing.)

Strictly speaking, I think this might be unfixable without a bunch of work, but so much stuff does this kind of operation that any compiler that doesn't do what you expect will have been fixed by now. (Assuming you're not one of those people who is going to pop up and tell us with a straight face that what we should expect is for the compiler to do absolutely anything - except, perhaps, for having it generate correct code, which would be defective behaviour that should be eliminated.) Maybe improve the odds by using lfs_mlist as the common initial sequence of both structs, and fingers crossed that the compiler considers the union rules to apply to this case too. Or compile with -fno-strict-aliasing.

Also, it looks like you're writing to the flash every second the engine is running. Do you have an idea of what the endurance of that might be? I'm not too familiar with this but supposedly the flash on the Pico is good for at least 100K program/erase cycles and Micropython uses LittleFS on RP2040 which does wear leveling. I looked for more official info and the rp2 port code backs that up with a note: "the flash requires the programming size to be aligned to 256 bytes". And the littlefs readme does say it does wear leveling and other good stuff.

Maybe first go and localize which assumption has been voided, i.e. what of the many places in littlefs that raise this error actually raise it? And... erm... what littlefs are you talking about? https://github.com/littlefs-project/littlefs doesn't seem to have a fs_close() function...

Rather easy to add LittleFS for file storage onto the NOR flash. https://github.com/littlefs-project/littlefs

Hi, What is the LTFS 'driver' you use for this? Some LTFS version provide a mode for supporting the buggy HBA. This helps time to time with some. It can be worst to try . Here is one version of LTFS i can recommend to use, and a link to an explanation about the Buggy HBA mode: https://github.com/LinearTapeFileSystem/ltfs/wiki/HBA-info And link to issue of user having potential similar problem https://github.com/LinearTapeFileSystem/ltfs/issues/144

I think IBM are actually the ones writing the reference implementation that HP and everyone else are basing their LTFS drivers on, so the compatibility list includes more than just IBM drives. In a production environment you'll probably be using the vendor software in any case. But I built the reference implementation on my home machine previously and it worked fine. https://github.com/LinearTapeFileSystem/ltfs

There is also a fair amount of energy going into the reference ltfs implementation, which I’ve yet to try properly: https://github.com/LinearTapeFileSystem/ltfs I suspect using this version would be a good idea in the long term.

Is LTFS (including "mkltfs") on any repo? Is CentOS 6 still supported? The IBM docs suggest RHEL6 was supported. I found an LTFS GitHub, but of course it says CentOS 7+ is needed. It doesn't show support for newer Linux releases, though (CentOS9/RHEL9, Ubuntu 20/22, Debian 10/11, etc.), so I'm not sure if there is a better source for LTFS.

I recently purchased a LTO-5 drive for my Gentoo-based NAS and have a few key takeaways for those who are interested. Don't buy a HP tape drive if you want to use LTFS on Linux! HPE Library & Tape Tools is prety much dead on modern Linux. Official support is only for RHE 7.x and a few versions of Suse. Building from source is a dependency nightmare that will leave you pulling hair. IBM drives have much better Linux support thanks to https://github.com/LinearTapeFileSystem/ltfs. That being said, IMO, you should consider ditching LTFS for good ol' TAR! It's been battle tested since 1979 and can be installed on basically anything. TAR is easy to use, well documented, and makes way more sense for linear filesystems. While drag&drop is nice and all, it really does not make sense for linear storage.

Looks fairly active to me