Re: Compressed filesystem revisited

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
22 Sep 1998 21:09:52 GMT

Followup to: <45ACD3A39598D111BD090010A800043FE6FA3D@cluster1.tsc.icl.co.uk>
By author: Greaves Tristan TM <Tristan.Greaves@icl.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> > I know whole compressed filesystems are considered unwholesome, but I
> > think there may be an exception to this: compressed ISO9660.
> >
> > Has this been done before? Is it a good idea?
>
> Why would ISO9660 be an exception? Normally the main reason compressed
> filesystems are considered bad is that in the event of corruption, it is
> a *lot* harder to recover the data.
>

No, that's just part of it. Virtually all the complexity comes from
the read/write nature of the filesystem.

> And, of course, there is the speed issue.
>
> So how does ISO9660 differ? Or do you mean ISO9660 as employed on CD, so you
> could assume no data loss?
>

ISO 9660 differs because it's read-only, and that considerable amount
of complexity can go into creating an ISO 9660 filesystem. That is
unique.

-hpa

-- 
    PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD  1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74
    See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key
        I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/
   "To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Misérables


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/