On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0300, Timofey Titovets wrote: > 2017-09-12 12:19 GMT+03:00 Alberto Bursi <alberto.bu...@outlook.it>: > > Since zstd was added in btrfs there are people wondering why not lz4 too. > > > > The wiki paragraph [1] cites a couple dead links as explanations on why > > it's not a good idea to have lz4 in btrfs. > > > > I think it would be nice if someone can write that information back in > > the wiki, or for the very least write them in a mailing list message > > that can be linked there. > > > > > > -Alberto > > > > > > 1. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Will_btrfs_support_LZ4.3F > > > > AFAIK Problem description: > https://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=140181084426296&w=2
Yeah that's the response. And the reason for not adding lz4 still stands, there's no measurable benefit over lzo under the implementation constraints we have in btrfs now. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
