From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751507AbeFAJ2R (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2018 05:28:17 -0400 Received: from lilium.sigma-star.at ([109.75.188.150]:50824 "EHLO lilium.sigma-star.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751170AbeFAJ2M (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2018 05:28:12 -0400 From: Richard Weinberger To: Gao Xiang , LKML Cc: linux-fsdevel , miaoxie@huawei.com, yuchao0@huawei.com, sunqiuyang@huawei.com, fangwei1@huawei.com, liguifu2@huawei.com, weidu.du@huawei.com, chen.chun.yen@huawei.com, brooke.wangzhigang@hisilicon.com, dongjinguang@huawei.com Subject: Re: [NOMERGE] [RFC PATCH 00/12] erofs: introduce erofs file system Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 11:28:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1670077.cnVahIradn@blindfold> In-Reply-To: References: <1527764767-22190-1-git-send-email-gaoxiang25@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Freitag, 1. Juni 2018, 11:11:21 CEST schrieb Gao Xiang: > > In which sense is it extendable? > > Actually, the meaning of an enhanced (means not just read-only, but with the scalable > on-disk layout, compression, or fs-verify in the future) read-only file system is emphasized. ah ok. > We also think of other candidate full names, such as > Enhanced / Extented Read-only File System, all the names short for "erofs" are okay. TBH, I read "erofs" as "error fs". ;-) > > How does it compare to existing read only filesystems, such as squashfs? > > > > You are quite right. > > We are now focusing on improving our decompression subsystem and > these numbers will be successively added in the future non-RFC patches. > > We haven't pay much attention on comparing squashfs and erofs > yet since we once tried to use squashfs on our products with > different block sizes several years ago, it behaves > unacceptable in the low free memory scenario besides its > performance. I'm interested in the comparison because I use squashfs often for embedded devices on top of ubiblock (raw nand). If there is something that can do better, I'm all for it. Thanks, //richard -- sigma star gmbh - Eduard-Bodem-Gasse 6 - 6020 Innsbruck - Austria ATU66964118 - FN 374287y