On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 9:45 AM Bohdan Khomutskyi <bkhom...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > I posted more benchmark results in this article: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Changes/OptimizeSquashFS > Cool! Do you have any tests to compare plain squashfs xz with zstd? The nested ext4 stuff is really pointless now because Fedora hasn't used 'dd' + resizing the ext4 file system as an installation method in a long time (going back to Fedora 18 I think). All of the Live installations use rsync. The Zstd compression performed worse than XZ in the compression test. On the other hand, 40% lower installation time for Zstd, was documented. Along with the CPU consumption 37% lower. All installation tests were performed from and to local NVMe storage. Which I consider far from real life scenario. Fedora QA nightly tests are real and I think it'll make a meaningful impact for both the creation of the ISOs, as well as their consumption, in a lot of cases. Even if it doesn't impact USB installations. I do VM installs on both SSD and NVMe and and it matters there. But also the power consumption of xz I think is relevant whether baremetal or virtual. Thanks! -- Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
