From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Samuel Masham" Subject: Re: [ANN] Squashfs 3.0 released Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:51:29 +0900 Message-ID: <93564eb70603161751g734b0690t@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060317010529.GB30801@schatzie.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: "Andreas Dilger" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from uproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.92.204]:51818 "EHLO uproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750759AbWCQBvb convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:51:31 -0500 Received: by uproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id u40so294463ugc for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:51:29 -0800 (PST) To: "Phillip Lougher" In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi Phillip, On 17/03/06, Phillip Lougher wrote: > and in constrained > block device/memory systems (e.g. embedded systems) where low > overhead is > needed." > > At the moment it tends to be used for embedded systems, and liveCDs. >>From the embedded side here... Have you any idea how the performance of version 3.0 stack up against 2.1? You haven't updated the readme.performance file yet :) thanks Samuel ps Looking forward to seeing squashfs in main line soon :)