dead links in wiki about why not using lz4

dead links in wiki about why not using lz4

[Alberto Bursi]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 575 bytes --]

Since zstd was added in btrfs there are people wondering why not lz4 too.

The wiki paragraph [1] cites a couple dead links as explanations on why 
it's not a good idea to have lz4 in btrfs.

I think it would be nice if someone can write that information back in 
the wiki, or for the very least write them in a mailing list message 
that can be linked there.


-Alberto


1. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Will_btrfs_support_LZ4.3F


ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±ý»k~ÏâžØ^n‡r¡ö¦zË\x1aëh™¨è­Ú&£ûàz¿äz¹Þ—ú+€Ê+zf£¢·hšˆ§~†­†Ûiÿÿïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x0fæj:+v‰¨þ)ߣøm

Re: dead links in wiki about why not using lz4

[Timofey Titovets]

2017-09-12 12:19 GMT+03:00 Alberto Bursi <alberto.bursi@outlook.it>:
> Since zstd was added in btrfs there are people wondering why not lz4 too.
>
> The wiki paragraph [1] cites a couple dead links as explanations on why
> it's not a good idea to have lz4 in btrfs.
>
> I think it would be nice if someone can write that information back in
> the wiki, or for the very least write them in a mailing list message
> that can be linked there.
>
>
> -Alberto
>
>
> 1. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Will_btrfs_support_LZ4.3F
>

AFAIK Problem description:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=140181084426296&w=2

-- 
Have a nice day,
Timofey.

Re: dead links in wiki about why not using lz4

[David Sterba]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0300, Timofey Titovets wrote:
> 2017-09-12 12:19 GMT+03:00 Alberto Bursi <alberto.bursi@outlook.it>:
> > Since zstd was added in btrfs there are people wondering why not lz4 too.
> >
> > The wiki paragraph [1] cites a couple dead links as explanations on why
> > it's not a good idea to have lz4 in btrfs.
> >
> > I think it would be nice if someone can write that information back in
> > the wiki, or for the very least write them in a mailing list message
> > that can be linked there.
> >
> >
> > -Alberto
> >
> >
> > 1. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Will_btrfs_support_LZ4.3F
> >
> 
> AFAIK Problem description:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=140181084426296&w=2

Yeah that's the response. And the reason for not adding lz4 still
stands, there's no measurable benefit over lzo under the implementation
constraints we have in btrfs now.

Re: dead links in wiki about why not using lz4

[David Sterba]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:19:14AM +0000, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> Since zstd was added in btrfs there are people wondering why not lz4 too.
> 
> The wiki paragraph [1] cites a couple dead links as explanations on why 
> it's not a good idea to have lz4 in btrfs.

Regarding dead links, there's no replacement for the web interface of
gmane.org, so there are now many left.