Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
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 :-)
Speaking of which, the bloke who's name escaped you is called Paul
"Rusty" Russel.
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?
That's easy to explain.
Both random access tests quoted at that page show squashfs as faster
then cloop, unless I'm confused again.
If you look at 2.1.3, labeled "Random I/O performance" when executing
from CD, the second line from the top says "Cloop", and that's the exact
place where I misread the results.
See, I told you it would be easy.
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... :-)
Actually, it's using losetup to set up an encrypted file system that I
most like....
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]
