Glen Eustace wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:03 -0600, jeff wrote:
>2) Currently mkzftree is using -z 3 for compression. What is the
>tradeoff between -z 9 and -z 3? Certainly it will take longer to
>compress, but what about decompression--is it much of a CPU hit? It
>seems the bottleneck is reading from the CD--it's not CPU bound doing
>decompression (unless on a really old box). So if the files were smaller
>there would be less data to read in and hence the CD would run faster.
>
>
Is squashfs going to be a better solution ?
My first venture into LiveCDs was using the YETAA stuff (ADIOS). They
have used squashfs and it seemed to work quite well. It did mean having
to add it to the kernel. Anyone know what the plans are for having
squashfs included in the std kernel ?
Squashfs was submitted to LKML recently and there was some discussions
surrouding that. It is a likely candidate for the upstream kernel and
is under use by several other Live CD solutions
regards
Rahul