Re: [PATCH][2/2] SquashFS

From: Paulo Marques
Date: Tue Mar 15 2005 - 13:30:44 EST

Andrew Morton wrote:
Also, this filesystem seems to do the same thing as cramfs. We'd need to
understand in some detail what advantages squashfs has over cramfs to
justify merging it. Again, that is something which is appropriate to the
changelog for patch 1/1.

Well, probably Phillip can answer this better than me, but the main differences that affect end users (and that is why we are using SquashFS right now) are:

Max File Size 16Mb 4Gb
Max Filesystem Size 256Mb 4Gb?
UID/GID 8 bits 32 bits
Block Size 4K default 64k

Probably the block size is the most responsible for this, but the compression ratio achieved by SquashFS is much higher than that achieved with cramfs.

I just wanted to say one thing on behalf of SquashFS. We've been using SquashFS in production on a POS system we sell, and we have currently more than 1200 of these in use. There was never a problem reported that involved SquashFS.

Although the workload patterns of these systems are probably very similar (so the quantity doesn't really matter much), it is a real world test of the filesystem, nevertheless.

Paulo Marques -

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at