RE: Compressed filesystem revisited

Greaves Tristan TM (Tristan.Greaves@icl.com)
Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:30:34 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ketil@ii.uib.no [mailto:ketil@ii.uib.no]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 10:11 AM
> To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Compressed filesystem revisited
>
>
> I know whole compressed filesystems are considered unwholesome, but I
> think there may be an exception to this: compressed ISO9660.
>
> Has this been done before? Is it a good idea?

Why would ISO9660 be an exception? Normally the main reason compressed
filesystems are considered bad is that in the event of corruption, it is
a *lot* harder to recover the data.

And, of course, there is the speed issue.

So how does ISO9660 differ? Or do you mean ISO9660 as employed on CD, so you
could assume no data loss?

Tris.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/