On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:47:15PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2010-02-11 15:41, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >tytso@xxxxxxx writes: > >>The idea with read-only compressed files is that they are useful for > >>large executables or large static files, where compressing them means > >>that it takes less time to read them off of an HDD. > > > >Or when you only have so much flash. > > Isn't that what squashfs is for? The problem with the squashfs, fuse, ecryptfs approaches for the use case that I am envisioning is that it's an all-or-nothing sort of thing. You may not want to encrypt all of the files in a file system. Sure, you can play games with bind mounts, and/or accept the performance hit of passing everything through fuse even for files that aren't encrypted, but I think that's going to significantly inhibit adoption of the technology. Something which allows compressed and uncompressed files to co-exist without any performance hits to the uncompressed files, and which allows for a gradual transition after you upgrade rpm/dpkg and as packages get upgraded is going to much easier time with adoption rates. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
