big difference between squashfs and erofs size image about erofs-utils

[hsiangkao]

This is what as expected. Since EROFS uses 4kb fixed-sized output compression,
but squashfs uses 128kb fixed-sized input compression by default.

the comparable options are:
mksquashfs /run/WORK/CHROOT.NEW/ tmp/chroot.sqfs -b 4096 -noappend -comp lz4 -no-xattrs
mksquashfs /run/WORK/CHROOT.NEW/ tmp/chroot.sqfs -b 8192 -noappend -comp lz4 -no-xattrs

and the performance benefit is against all squashfs options (no matter 4kb/8kb or 128kb..)

In principle, EROFS could support 128kb fixed-sized output compression in
the future as well, but for our current use scenario (Android smartphone),
128kb+4kb out of 4kb random I/O at once is not attractive, so I can only
say it's still on the wishlist. Since we never considered 128kb block size
in smartphone products at all.

[limbo127]

Ok, thanks for your explanation Regards, Nicolas Le lun. 21 sept. 2020 à 19:47, Gao Xiang <[email protected]> a écrit :

…

This is what as expected. Since EROFS uses 4kb fixed-sized output compression, but squashfs uses 128kb fixed-sized input compression by default. the comparable options are: mksquashfs /run/WORK/CHROOT.NEW/ tmp/chroot.sqfs -b 4096 -noappend -comp lz4 -no-xattrs mksquashfs /run/WORK/CHROOT.NEW/ tmp/chroot.sqfs -b 8192 -noappend -comp lz4 -no-xattrs In principle, EROFS could support 128kb fixed-sized output compression in the future as well, but for our current use scenario (Android smartphone), 128kb+4kb out of 4kb random I/O at once is not attractive, so I can only say it's still on the wishlist. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMCNUA7C72VR2M5JRSY6W3SG6GRRANCNFSM4RUTB43A> .

[hsiangkao]

Ok, thanks for your explanation Regards, Nicolas

Ok, I will close the issue.