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

Re: JFFS compression and hard links.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Bjorn Wesen wrote:
> > > We might as well bite the bullet and do dynamic compression right from the
> > > start - people want it.
> >
> > Some people want it - I definitely don't want it and the iPAQ guys did not
> > want it either :)
> People who pay my salary want it :) IIRC Jim Gettys suggested it just
> because it'd be easier, not because he didn't actually want dynamic
> compression.

I think there was a question of CPU usage i.e. battery duration as well.  I
don't know if the difference for normal use is significant though.

> > A mount option would be in order to disable/enable it I guess.
> OK, I'll do that. Makes a lot of sense.

While we are at the point of redefining node content, why not assigning a
bit which meaning would be "compress on write"?  This way compression could
be selected on a file by file basis as well.  Frequently rewritten files may
be marked as "do not compress" while unfrequently modified files, like
configuration files, would be compressed.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxx.com