linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: Add romfs version 2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:16:24 +1000
From:	"Lindsay Roberts" <lindsay.roberts.os@...il.com>
To:	"Matt Mackall" <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	celinux-dev@...e.celinuxforum.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Add romfs version 2

On 7/18/07, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> wrote:
> > > * Adds new derivative of romfs filesystem (rom2fs) with
> > >   block aligned regular file data to bring performance
> > >   parity with ext2/3. This is about 225% of the read
> > >   speed of the existing romfs.
>
> Doesn't that make these filesystems much bigger? By, on average, .5k
> per file? Or, if I'm understanding things correctly, ~1k?

Yes, my experience has been that it has been almost chillingly close
to .5k per regular file increase in partition size. I know in
applications in which size is utterly critical this may be slightly
unattractive, but in cases where romfs is chosen for its byte
reproducibility and read-only nature the size/performance tradeoff is
fairly advantageous.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/