Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Hope this helps,
Gilad
It does, but truthfully,
http://tree.celinuxforum.org/CelfPubWiki/SquashFsComparisons helps even
more.
To summarize:
CramFS, and more particularly, SquashFS, have lower overheads in terms
of CPU usage, and are thus better for cases where performance is CPU
bound. It is also the cleaner solution.
cloop is better at random access, and is therefor better where CPU
performance is not the bottleneck, or when the access metric is highly
random in nature.
Another interesting difference is that there is no mode for running
cloop as a non-module. I'm sure one can be added, but it requires the
file name to bind to at load time, so I'm not sure that's really
feasible in cases, such as a live CD, where you don't have the file at
boot time. In the embedded field, where there is not much use for a
modular kernel, that is a great minus.
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com/
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
