the basic premise is that remapping is necessarily expensive. unfortunately, neither the thesis nor its citations really support that. and we have plenty of e

the basic premise is that remapping is necessarily expensive. unfortunately, neither the thesis nor its citations really support that. and we have plenty of examples where remapping is pervasive and apparently efficient (MMUs, for instance). it's hard to imagine how a filesystem could reasonably handle wear-levelling, not to mention the now-common practice of using MLC cells to hold SLC data for faster writes, etc. the "nameless writes" idea is OK - a FS person would just call it even lazier allocation, not anything really different.