| 1 |
Richard Fish write: |
| 2 |
> From what I can tell, there are no really good compressing filesystems |
| 3 |
available currently. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I would disagree, Squashfs is an advanced read-only compressing filesystem, |
| 6 |
which uses numerous techniques to obtaIn high compression ratios while also |
| 7 |
being fast. Some of the techniques (compressed metadata, use of fragment |
| 8 |
blocks, indexed compressed directories) I doubt you'll find many places |
| 9 |
elsewhere irrespective of the operating system. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
What I would agree with is there is no commercial support for compressing |
| 12 |
filesystems, which at a time where the major improvements to the Linux |
| 13 |
kernel are (arguably) being driven by the Linux distribution vendors, is a |
| 14 |
major limitation. Unfortunately, embedded systems vendors tend to simply |
| 15 |
use what is there, and the others are mainly focussed on the enterprise |
| 16 |
which is why there's a lot of enterprise scale and clustering filesystems |
| 17 |
about. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> But why do you need to do this in the filesystem? Why not use a |
| 20 |
> compressible format for your backups like tar, cpio, or (my favorite) |
| 21 |
> dar? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So you can mount the filesystem and transparently access the files as if |
| 24 |
they were uncompressed. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Phillip Lougher |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-can-I-use-for-a-compressed-file-system--t1604870.html#a4363501 |
| 30 |
Sent from the gentoo-user forum at Nabble.com. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives