From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] AXFS: axfs_super.c Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:52:37 +0200 Message-ID: <200808221852.38950.arnd@arndb.de> References: <48AD0101.4020505@gmail.com> <48AE19AD.1020209@lougher.demon.co.uk> <6934efce0808212005h30fa16d8w48833e8a0becfd8c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6934efce0808212005h30fa16d8w48833e8a0becfd8c@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Jared Hulbert Cc: Phillip Lougher , Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd , =?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rn?= Engel , tim.bird@am.sony.com, cotte@de.ibm.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au On Friday 22 August 2008, Jared Hulbert wrote: > > This implies for block devices that the entire filesystem metadata = has to be > > cached in RAM. =C2=A0This severely limits the size of AXFS filesyst= ems when using > > block devices, or the else memory usage will be excessive. >=20 > This is where 64bit squashfs could be a better fit. Is this the only place where squashfs has a significant advantage?=20 If so, you might want to change it in axfs eventually to make the decision easier for users ;-) It certainly sounds like something for your medium-term TODO list, although I wouldn't think of it as a show-stopper. Arnd <>< From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1KWZt3-0003mR-Pd for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:53:22 +0000 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "Jared Hulbert" Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] AXFS: axfs_super.c Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:52:37 +0200 References: <48AD0101.4020505@gmail.com> <48AE19AD.1020209@lougher.demon.co.uk> <6934efce0808212005h30fa16d8w48833e8a0becfd8c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6934efce0808212005h30fa16d8w48833e8a0becfd8c@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808221852.38950.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: cotte@de.ibm.com, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, Phillip Lougher , =?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rn?= Engel , Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd , tim.bird@am.sony.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Friday 22 August 2008, Jared Hulbert wrote: > > This implies for block devices that the entire filesystem metadata has = to be > > cached in RAM. =C2=A0This severely limits the size of AXFS filesystems = when using > > block devices, or the else memory usage will be excessive. >=20 > This is where 64bit squashfs could be a better fit. Is this the only place where squashfs has a significant advantage?=20 If so, you might want to change it in axfs eventually to make the decision easier for users ;-) It certainly sounds like something for your medium-term TODO list, although I wouldn't think of it as a show-stopper. Arnd <>< From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754647AbYHVQxw (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:53:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755436AbYHVQxZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:53:25 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:63584 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752871AbYHVQxX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:53:23 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "Jared Hulbert" Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] AXFS: axfs_super.c Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:52:37 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: "Phillip Lougher" , Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd , "=?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rn?= Engel" , tim.bird@am.sony.com, cotte@de.ibm.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au References: <48AD0101.4020505@gmail.com> <48AE19AD.1020209@lougher.demon.co.uk> <6934efce0808212005h30fa16d8w48833e8a0becfd8c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6934efce0808212005h30fa16d8w48833e8a0becfd8c@mail.gmail.com> X-Face: I@=L^?./?$U,EK.)V[4*>`zSqm0>65YtkOe>TFD'!aw?7OVv#~5xd\s,[~w]-J!)|%=]>=?utf-8?q?+=0A=09=7EohchhkRGW=3F=7C6=5FqTmkd=5Ft=3FLZC=23Q-=60=2E=60Y=2Ea=5E?= =?utf-8?q?3zb?=) =?utf-8?q?+U-JVN=5DWT=25cw=23=5BYo0=267C=26bL12wWGlZi=0A=09=7EJ=3B=5Cwg?= =?utf-8?q?=3B3zRnz?=,J"CT_)=\H'1/{?SR7GDu?WIopm.HaBG=QYj"NZD_[zrM\Gip^U MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808221852.38950.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+l4erW0XjgBZOLpXvMvXWnGO0zbPQlm2H3ey6 bKh8d6CYVfkmDT3yYCokhjQPcxm8ETFfkV473/rLsRVyWjzFmt J6iSHZX+4hme+AyrdehTw== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 22 August 2008, Jared Hulbert wrote: > > This implies for block devices that the entire filesystem metadata has to be > > cached in RAM.  This severely limits the size of AXFS filesystems when using > > block devices, or the else memory usage will be excessive. > > This is where 64bit squashfs could be a better fit. Is this the only place where squashfs has a significant advantage? If so, you might want to change it in axfs eventually to make the decision easier for users ;-) It certainly sounds like something for your medium-term TODO list, although I wouldn't think of it as a show-stopper. Arnd <><