Re: F42 Change Proposal: Switch to EROFS for Live Media (self-contained)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 8:28 PM Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2025/1/17 09:14, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 8:00 PM Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> (resend this due to lack of subscription. and I just quote some reply to express my basic ideas on this stuff)
> >>
> >>> There's one thing the EROFS developers never talk about, and that's metadata compression.  EROFS doesn't do it, but Squashfs does, and it has done since 2002.
> >>
> >> Did you notice that https://erofs.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/faq.html ?
> >>
> >>> The tests are all done in way to flater EROFS and put Squashfs in the worst light.  For example see https://erofs.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/comparsion/dedupe.html.  They deliberately disable Squashfs metadata compression because EROFS doesn't support it, and use 128K blocks despite Squashfs supporting 1Mbyte blocks (look for the line [1] SquashFS uses –b 131072 by default, -noI will disable its metadata compression.).
> >>
> >> It just shows that SquashFS doesn't support extent-based deduplication (because SquashFS on-disk indexes just record compressed sizes and cannot be randomly indexed), since EROFS doesn't support metadata compression so I benchmarked against SquashFS and explicitly point out the metadata compression is off on the SquashFS side to show the benefits of deduplication.  Why it's called unbiased?
> >>
> >> Don't make me wrong, if -b 1048576 (1m chunks) is used, then the chunk deduplication possibility is low.
> >> But not anyone cares image size (especially for smartphone) just by using large extent sizes (like 1MiB) and real-time performance is important for them, decompress 1MiB to get 4KiB random data is unacceptable for them.
> >>
> >>> By doing this they deliberately reduce the compression and speed of Squashfs in their tests.  This IMHO is biased and unethical.   But that is how it is.
> >>
> >> Also if I were a random filesystem author, I will never argue just due to lack of development resource.
> >>
> >> Whether EROFS will use for Fedora LiveOS finally, honestly I don't care (although I wish it could be used more widely), I will focus on new features that end users really care and it's really an input.  I only care EROFS can be totally usable on RHEL/CentOS since we have customers to use these OSes and I will serve for their detailed use cases.
> >>
> >> Please note, EROFS was once proposed to resolve SquashFS unacceptable random runtime performance issues on the high-performance Android scenerios, and almost all smartphone vendors on the market use EROFS now.  As for other scenarios, I would just call it as a plus.
> >>
> >> If users think metadata compression is useful to minimize their images, and I will consider to add this in my spare time (Because it's never useful for my paid job too, they even don't care about multithreaded compression).  Also I did not ask random vendors to contribute EROFS, just because Bytedance or other vendors need it and they develop new features for their use cases.
> >>
> >
> > I certainly would appreciate features like metadata compression, BCJ
> > filters, and anything to improve image creation time when -Ededupe is
> > used. I also wanted to use zstd compression instead of lzma (since it
> > decompresses way faster), but the compression performance isn't quite
> > there yet.
>
> Since it's not my paid job, I will try my best to work them out in
> my spare time.  But really, for our own use cases we don't care much
> about them, it's also called "a labor of love".
>

I understand this very well. Most of my FOSS work would fall in that
category too.

> >
> > Runtime speed is really valuable for us because typical media that
> > Linux live environments are running from are slower than even most
> > mobile device flash storage modules. At worst, we're talking about
> > actually booting from a DVD (which is still a thing people do in some
> > places), but we also need maximal space savings because of download
> > bandwidth and fitting on small media.
>
> Anyway, EROFS was once specifically designed for Android devices
> initially, I will try to make it work better for other useful cases,
> questions, issues, and features are much helpful for me to improve
> the filesystem itself.
>

Thank you, I appreciate whatever you can do to make things better for
our use-cases. :)


-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
-- 
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux