m.storchak at gmail dot com wrote:
Is there a reason to use full path specification? Why can't
mkfs.ext{2|4} be called and whichever is found first in PATH gets
executed? In this case only one of e2fsprogs and busybox implementations
should be required. Let busybox be default, but please leave an
On 7/3/16 00:26, Luke McKee wrote:
> For some further background...
>
> the original procd zram patch uses ext2 :)
>
> https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/19586#comment:9
> https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2014-December/029587.html
>
> It shows you what happens when someone enables
Actually lzo compresses better but they are both fast. lz4 is faster
on embedded devices.
zram-swap should use lz4 if available and the patch can be as it
was.http://blog.jpountz.net/post/28092106032/wow-lz4-is-fast
lz4 has compression levels. in any case, speed > size on
embedded devices.
v2 of the patch. uses lz4 compression by default. lz4 is always
installed by openwrt Makefile Config.in if zram.
lz4 is best for compressed filesystems as we all know (if you had to
choose between that and lzo).
zram-swap can keep using lzo for speed!
I'll work in a compatibility patch for
For some further background...
the original procd zram patch uses ext2 :)
https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/19586#comment:9
https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2014-December/029587.html
It shows you what happens when someone enables this option from make menuconfig.
There needs to be
Hi guys,
This is a little one. Busybox mkfs.ext2 works and with this setup the
ext4 module can mount /tmp without a journal. See #22666 I tested it.
Also the Makefile for procd doesn't have any dependencies for busybox
CONFIG_BUSYBOX_CONFIG_MKFS_EXT2=y OR e2fsprogs.
See the zram-swap Makefile.
