From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Jared Hulbert" <jaredeh@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] AXFS: axfs_super.c
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:52:37 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: "Phillip Lougher" <phillip@lougher.demon.co.uk>,
       Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
       "=?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rn?= Engel" <joern@logfs.org>, tim.bird@am.sony.com,
       cotte@de.ibm.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au
References: <48AD0101.4020505@gmail.com> <48AE19AD.1020209@lougher.demon.co.uk> <6934efce0808212005h30fa16d8w48833e8a0becfd8c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6934efce0808212005h30fa16d8w48833e8a0becfd8c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200808221852.38950.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 870
Lines: 20

On Friday 22 August 2008, Jared Hulbert wrote:
> > This implies for block devices that the entire filesystem metadata has to be
> > cached in RAM.  This severely limits the size of AXFS filesystems when using
> > block devices, or the else memory usage will be excessive.
> 
> This is where 64bit squashfs could be a better fit.

Is this the only place where squashfs has a significant advantage? 
If so, you might want to change it in axfs eventually to make the
decision easier for users ;-)

It certainly sounds like something for your medium-term TODO list,
although I wouldn't think of it as a show-stopper.

	Arnd <><
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/