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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4B74351D.5010308@cox.net> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:49:33 -0600 From: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@....net> To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: ext5 On 2010-02-11 00:44, tytso@....edu wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:18:21PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: >>> We currently don't have any plans for an "ext5". There might be some >>> new features that might gradually trickle into ext4; for example >>> there's someone who I may be mentoring who is interested in working on >>> an idea I've had to add read-only compression to ext4. (Actually, the >>> design I've sketched out makes 90% of the work be file system >>> independent, so it's something that could be retrofitted into other >>> filesystems: xfs, btrfs, etc.) >> I guess that means every file on the fs? > > No, I mean per-file compression, but a compressed file is immutable. > This is basically what Mac OS X has recently added, and while I > haven't looked at their implementation, Apple being one of those > closed source companies and all, I wouldn't be surprised if they did > things the same way. > >> Windows-like per-file compression would be darned useful in certain >> circumstances. Big mbox files, for example. > > The problem with mbox files is that some mail readers try to smart > about how they modify them to avoid needing to rewrite the whole mbox > file; mutt will seak to the middle of the file, write to the end of > the file, and then trim off any excess space by using the truncate > system call. This is *hard* to support if the mbox file is > compressed; you can do it using a stacker-style compression technique, > but it's not as efficient, and it has a lot of complexity in the > kernel. I guess that's how Windows does it? > The idea with read-only compressed files is that they are useful for > large executables or large static files, where compressing them means > that it takes less time to read them off of an HDD. Sure. Anything is better than nothing! -- "Hell hath no fury like the vast robot armies of a woman scorned." Walt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists