Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Hope this helps,
Gilad
It does, but truthfully,
http://tree.celinuxforum.org/CelfPubWiki/SquashFsComparisons helps even
more.
It shows the numbers but does not tell the story :-)
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.
How did you come about to this conclusion?
Both random access tests quoted at that page show squashfs as faster
then cloop, unless I'm confused again.
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.
As I said, cloop is an "out of tree" solution. Anyway, it's very easy to
solve without a hard coded file name via an ioctl or proc file interface
if one was so inclined - exactly like the loop device and losetup
utility do it, although most users are not aware of this since mount
calls losetup in the background... :-)
Cheers,
Gilad
--
Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Codefidence. A name you can trust(tm)
Web: http://codefidence.com | SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IL: +972.9.8650475 ext. 201 | Fax: +972.9.8850643
US: +1.360.2275194 ext. 201 | Cel: +972.52.8260388
"I am Jack's Overwritten Stack Pointer"
-- Hackers Club, the movie
=================================================================
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]
