Re: [ANN] Squashfs 3.0 released

["Jörn Engel" <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>]

On Tue, 21 March 2006 14:28:53 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2006  20:03 +0000, Phillip Lougher wrote:
> > I don't want the lack of a fixed endianness on disk to become a problem. 
> >   I personally don't think the use of, or lack of a fixed endianness to 
> > be that important, but I'd prefer not to change the current situation 
> > and adopt a fixed format.  I use big endian systems almost exclusively, 
> > and I don't like the way fixed formats always tend to be little-endian.
> 
> If you want to squeak every last ounce of performance out of the filesystem,
> just have it declare two filesystem types - one for the little-endian, and
> one for the bit endian.  Generate one of them via "sed" from the other, to
> rename the functions, exports, etc, so they don't conflict.  Then, depending
> on the superblock magic it will mount the right filesystem, depending on
> endianness.  Since they are separate filesystems, normally only one module
> or the other need to be loaded at a time, and there is no runtime overhead.

That would be an interesting idea for quite another purpose:
measurement.

So far, there has been a lack of numbers in this thread.  Al mentioned
that conditional branches can be more expensive and I usually trust
his words, but actual cold hard numbers would help more.

> 	"unlisted-recipients: no To-header on input <;, Jeff Garzik" <jeff@garzik.org>,

I fixed this up.  No idea what garbled the header.

Jörn

-- 
My second remark is that our intellectual powers are rather geared to
master static relations and that our powers to visualize processes
evolving in time are relatively poorly developed.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra