On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 17:23 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 05/22/2013 01:45 PM, John Reiser wrote: > > On 05/22/2013 01:24 PM, drago01 wrote: > >> Which means you'd be better off with file system level compression. > > > > Yes, if you have administrator privileges and strategic planning, > > and if you can tolerate a read-only fs (or your fs can handle overwrites), > > then compression of the filesystem itself often saves more space. > > (Sometimes UPX still wins because of the 128KiB window in squashfs; > > the UPX window is often larger, and sometimes infinite.) > > > Since the context here was Live images, wouldn't it be a good idea to > use a filesystem that allows compression? The image is going to be > read-only anyway. It would allow more content and probably faster loading. We already compress things on the live image. Probably about three times. But the general take on the live image is that the current way we do live images is a horrible duct-taped mess, and what we really need to do is burn it down and start over, not tweak it even more. It's just that that's going quite slowly (livemedia-creator is supposed to be the brand new thing, but it had some design problems.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
