Re: [Server-devel] [support-gang] jffs2 vs ubifs vs ext4 space-efficiency question

[Gonzalo Odiard]

Would be nice explore F2FS (Flash-Friendly File System)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2FS

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Martin Langhoff 
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:28 PM, James Cameron  wrote:
> > Yes, jffs2 compresses data.  That's why it is so slow.  That's why SD
> > card is faster than it should be otherwise.
>
> +1 on James reply. Also a quick note: AIUI, jffs2 gets much of its
> storage advantage from better packing of directory structures &
> metadata.
>
> The overall compression savings include these, and look great. The
> files contents are not _that_ compressible :-)
>
>
>
> m
> --
>  martin.langh...@gmail.com
>  -  ask interesting questions
>  - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
>  ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
> ___
> Server-devel mailing list
> Server-devel@lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
>



-- 
Gonzalo Odiard
___
Server-devel mailing list
Server-devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel

Re: [Server-devel] [support-gang] jffs2 vs ubifs vs ext4 space-efficiency question

[James Cameron]

Yes, jffs2 compresses data.  That's why it is so slow.  That's why SD
card is faster than it should be otherwise.

No, there's no commonly used compression for ext4.

It would be a performance tradeoff; compression takes time and power.

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:24:48PM -0500, Adam Holt wrote:
> Any ideas why Release 13.2.6 placed on ext4 instead of jffs2 appears to almost
> double in size?
> 
> Starting with 13.2.6 on XO-1 on jffs2 per usual, "du -s /* | sort -nr" yields
> these contents for a stock/vanilla XO-1:
> 
>    1070992 /usr
>    239060  /home
>    117623  /var
>    18780   /etc
>    15382   /boot
>    8735    /versions
>    1032    /run
>    8    /tmp
>    ...
> 
> Naively summing up the above numbers gives a figure of almost 1.5GB, and yet 
> we
> all know the XO-1 is limited to 1.0GB :-)  Is jffs2 somehow compressing the
> above files by about 2X, which are clearly contained within 769MB as shown in
> "df -hT" below?
> 
>    Filesystem  Type  Size  Used  Avail   Use% Mounted on
>    mtd0   jffs2  1.0G  769M  256M  76%  /
>    ...
> 
> Basic tests putting 13.2.6 on an SD card with ext4 show a rough doubling in
> size with the same files (du's ~1.5GB of files indeed sum to about 1.5GB when
> listed using df), which I presume indicates ext4 dispenses with compression,
> unlike the more space-efficient to jffs2 (and presumably ubifs) etc designed
> for flash/SD devices ?
> 
> Apologies for my naivete: Would any ext4 partitioning options (or ubifs
> instead) offer any functionality similar to this apparently huge compression
> win offered by jffs2?  (Given I'm told jffs2 is not appropriate for the larger
> SD cards I'm experimenting with, even before we get to wear-leveling
> questions!)

> ___
> support-gang mailing list
> support-g...@lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/support-gang


-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
___
Server-devel mailing list
Server-devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel

Re: [Server-devel] [support-gang] jffs2 vs ubifs vs ext4 space-efficiency question

[Martin Langhoff]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:28 PM, James Cameron  wrote:
> Yes, jffs2 compresses data.  That's why it is so slow.  That's why SD
> card is faster than it should be otherwise.

+1 on James reply. Also a quick note: AIUI, jffs2 gets much of its
storage advantage from better packing of directory structures &
metadata.

The overall compression savings include these, and look great. The
files contents are not _that_ compressible :-)



m
-- 
 martin.langh...@gmail.com
 -  ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
___
Server-devel mailing list
Server-devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel