> I think a compressed file system is a good idea,
> for reasons mentioned before.

As you seem to have experience, please sketch the
possible usage and contents in a bit more detail.

> is instead of showing projected free space, show
> me the actual free space when i do a dir.

You could only show the free raw space in the
compressed image. How many kilobytes of files
you really fit in there depends on how well a
file compresses, which depends on contents.

One of the reasons why I wanted to know that.

Showing the raw space at least gives you the
"worst case" (not compressible) info, though.

> I for one wold be happy to test such a system, and I'm sure
> some of the embeded systems folks would be happy as well.

Please give more details about such a test: How
much disk and RAM space would you want to use and
how much content would be in the compressed FS,
how much of it would be written to, etc etc?

Thanks :-)

By the way, does anybody have experience with
driver-based FAT32 devices (USB, RAMDISK, as
opposed to kernel built-in FAT32 eg harddisk)?

Would FAT32 be okay for compressed drives, too?
Note that FAT32 takes > 0.5 MB for FATs and it
must have > 64 k clusters (eg > 32+0.5 MB size).


This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to