On Fri, 22 August 2008 18:08:51 +0100, Phillip Lougher wrote: > > Squashfs stores significantly more metadata than cramfs. Remember > cramfs has no support for filesystems > ~ 16Mbytes, no inode timestamps, > truncates uid/gids, no hard-links, no nlink counts, no hashed > directories, no unique inode numbers. If Squashfs didn't compress the > metadata it would be significantly larger than cramfs. Elsewhere in this maze of threads Arnd claimed to have tested the benefits of metadata compression - and it making little impact. My guess is that it would make a large impact if metadata would be a significant part of the filesystem image. Usually metadata is close enough to 0% to be mistaken for statistical noise. So compressing it makes a significant impact on an insignificant amount of data. Jörn -- One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code. -- Ken Thompson. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
