From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe96:be03]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "imap.thunk.org", Issuer "CAcert Class 3 Root" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA76521F3F1 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:45:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thunk.org; s=ef5046eb; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=oLphC8kF8LML2ct806qu4EudpD4sQsrBnDkUrmqaVrw=; b=A5MqY6fCRpZo/dMriKFGpORYOWBLWMev0ncjt9hkwGcdxgJeHG2FBmG/Un0iISHdGoMPfbBuyarnLbvHmR7a5UzIxPwnSwIm/GKP6/k6yUibCpjBKMmhKQdaYNKD5tnV93y8G1WNt5f9/V4nBI0qB3tN/w/wizHqCpLJk4gKEwg=; Received: from root (helo=closure.thunk.org) by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XO8G2-0003WD-AU; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:45:38 +0000 Received: by closure.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id C53AD58120D; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:45:31 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o To: David Lang Message-ID: <20140831164531.GE8974@thunk.org> References: <20140830213451.GA30271@thunk.org> <20140831013837.GB8974@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Is there a particular reason cerowrt isn't using UBIFS? X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:45:42 -0000 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 12:05:52AM -0700, David Lang wrote: > > One other place this sort of thing is likely to be useful is for Raspberry > Pi and other small (embedded by some defintions) systems that use SD cards > for their OS system. The I/O to the storage is so slow that the saved I/O > time is likely to more than cover the cost of the decompression. Yeah, that's the main argument I've heard for wanting to do decompression; it's to speed up I/O when using HDD's and cheap flash that has a minimal number of flash channels. > Raspberry Pi systems have had to move to 4G cards as their base because it's > just not possible to have the standard install do more than boot on a 2G > card. 2G SD cards -- $42.95 for a 10-pack 4G SD cards -- $53.95 for a 10-pack I have a design for adding compression, but except as a hobby effort, I've had a lot of trouble finding a company who would be willing to support an engineer to actually do the effort. :-( Unless the company is making a truly vast number of devices, and are very sensitive to the BOM cost, it might not make sense from an engineering / business plan point of view. So it will probably be something I do "for fun", when I can find the time.... and there are a lot of other projects where companies are willing to sponsor engineers to add new features, such as encryption, reflink support, data checksums, etc., where if I can help them land those features, it's unfortunately going to be higher priority than my personally working on compression support for ext4. But if someone is interested in working on it, they should talk to me; I'd be happy to work with someone interested in working on the project. - Ted