| 1 |
I think cloop has a much better compression ratio, but I don't know for |
| 2 |
sure. I'm CC'ing lu_zero on this because I seem to recall him being the |
| 3 |
cloop guy... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 02:48:27PM -0500, Justin Whitney wrote: |
| 6 |
> I'm new here (and new to gentoo) so please forgive me if this has been |
| 7 |
> discussed before. I've been working with your 1.4rc3 release, adding |
| 8 |
> support for loopback encrypted filesystems. Everything boots fine, but |
| 9 |
> as the kernel I'm using doesn't have cloop support (yet), it failed at |
| 10 |
> the livecd load stage. My next step is of course to add cloop support |
| 11 |
> to my kernel, and all *should* be well... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It seems, though, that your use of cloop is less widely supported than |
| 14 |
> other solutions - it would perhaps be more robust to use the ziso |
| 15 |
> transparent iso decompression extension which is present in 2.4 kernels, |
| 16 |
> even (at least it is in my 21-pre6 kernel), for example. So I'm |
| 17 |
> wondering why the choice of cloop over zisofs? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Thanks, |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Justin Whitney |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> -- |
| 25 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 29 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives