Re: cloop vs. compressed filesystems

2005-07-10 Thread Marc A. Volovic
Quoth Shachar Shemesh: > UnionFS is a method of mounting two directory structures under the same [snip much material] UnionFS, as such, is a very good idea - to a great degree born out of Plan 9. It is especially useful in such cases as multiply-mounted nfs root - only /etc/rw/ needs be held pe

Re: cloop vs. compressed filesystems

2005-07-10 Thread Eli Marmor
Thank you! I want to recommend anybody to read your response if he is interested in this field. But now you remain with your question, and I must admit that now that I think about it, I can't find any reason why cloop is preferred over cramfs. This is the problem with your questions: You always rai

Re: cloop vs. compressed filesystems

2005-07-10 Thread Shachar Shemesh
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 wh

Re: cloop vs. compressed filesystems

2005-07-10 Thread Gilad Ben-Yossef
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

Re: cloop vs. compressed filesystems

2005-07-10 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Eli Marmor wrote: FYI, cloop is being replaced by unionfs. No, it is not. In much the same way that sofas are not being replaced by car seats. They are two different things. Cloop is a compression loopback block, which means that you can use it to mount (read only) file systems, such that

Re: cloop vs. compressed filesystems

2005-07-10 Thread Shachar Shemesh
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 perf

Re: cloop vs. compressed filesystems

2005-07-10 Thread Gilad Ben-Yossef
Shachar Shemesh wrote: Hi all, I have a wonder I would like to raise, in the hope that someone has an insight. Knoppix invented a special loopback device called "cloop". This is a compressed loopback device, which means that you can connect an standard file system (say, ISO-9660 cdrom), and i

Re: cloop vs. compressed filesystems

2005-07-10 Thread Eli Marmor
FYI, cloop is being replaced by unionfs. You will not find unionfs in stable distros yet, because it is VERY buggy. But the fact that although it is so buggy, which is an impossible thing in the case of FS, it is preferred over cloop for several betas and pre releases, is very impressive, and may

cloop vs. compressed filesystems

2005-07-10 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Hi all, I have a wonder I would like to raise, in the hope that someone has an insight. Knoppix invented a special loopback device called "cloop". This is a compressed loopback device, which means that you can connect an standard file system (say, ISO-9660 cdrom), and it will be compressed an