Clay Barnes wrote:
>Forgive me if this has been answered recently, but I haven't gotten my
>last two dozen e-mails for today yet.
>
>Regarding the compression plugin, what sort of compression can one
>expect from it? I know that compression of files like bz2 will vary
What is the state of the compression plugin? Is it likely to appear in
mm-sources version of reiser4 any time soon?
Sincerely,
Roland
On Monday 27 March 2006 23:25, Hans Reiser wrote:
> (none of which benefit reiser4 much).
Mainline will benefit R4 much. Good luck! I know you guys can do it!
-p
--
Peter van Hardenberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Victoria, BC, Canada
Hi again,
> This depends on how long we remain distracted by Hellwig and company more
> than by how long they take to complete.
*Please* don't do this ;)
I know its your god given right and I also think the same way but I
would also like to see reiser4 in mainline anytime soon :-)
Thanks for re
> Are there any estimates of when the repacker and compression plugins
> will be available / stable?
This depends on how long we remain distracted by Hellwig and company more than
by how long they take to complete.
As soon as we go into the kernel, zam and vs focus on the compression
Robert Hulme wrote:
>Any of the Reiser devs have an answer to my questions? :-)
>
>--
>--
>"011 8 99988 199 9119 725...3"
>"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over
>them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." - Jesus
Any of the Reiser devs have an answer to my questions? :-)
--
--
"011 8 99988 199 9119 725...3"
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over
them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." - Jesus (Luke
19:27)
"Religion is a
> I've been watching the work of Hans and co. with great interest for several
> years. The performance and design of Reiser4 is very impressive. But for
> me, improved performance is not enough compensation for the pain of
> switching to a "non-standard" filesystem.
I would like to add me too, b
Are there any estimates of when the repacker and compression plugins
will be available / stable?
I'd like to add a "me too".
I've been watching the work of Hans and co. with great interest for several
years. The performance and design of Reiser4 is very impressive. But for
me, improved perf
On Thu 23 Mar 2006 16:26, Robert Hulme wrote:
> Are there any estimates of when the repacker and compression plugins
> will be available / stable?
...mumbles something about a resizer or something...
Ray
Are there any estimates of when the repacker and compression plugins
will be available / stable?
--
--
"011 8 99988 199 9119 725...3"
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over
them—bring them here and kill them in front of me
Fred Schaettgen wrote:
On Thursday, 22. September 2005 22:03, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Fred Schaettgen wrote:
I don't quite understand how the file plugin concept scales once we get
more of them. For instance if I want to have an additional attribute
attached to my files, which contains
michael chang wrote:
Second, will plugins be layerable, e.g. can I use a compression plugin
and a _seperate_ encryption plugin on the _same_ file,
There is a number of specific attributes including compression and
encryption
transform plugin ids, so user can assign it separately when
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:13:23 EDT, Gregory Maxwell said:
> It would normally seem silly to use RSA for disk encryption... but
> there might be applications, although you'd still never use RSA
> directly on user controlled data. For example, RSA could be used on a
> multi user server to append mail
On 9/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) RSA is useless for this - you really need a symmetric block cipher of some
> sort. Almost all block ciphers are best used with maximum-entropy input - if
> the attacker can lop out a large part of the keyspace, a brute force attack
> be
On Thursday, 22. September 2005 22:03, Edward Shishkin wrote:
> Fred Schaettgen wrote:
> >I don't quite understand how the file plugin concept scales once we get
> > more of them. For instance if I want to have an additional attribute
> > attached to my files, which contains a checksum that is kept
Why do you need separate ones? Having only a cryptcompress file plugin
you will be able
to create files which are either only encrypted or only compressed, just
set the transform
plugins properly.
It also make sense to have compression and crypto "close" to each other,
which lets the da
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:54:12 EDT, michael chang said:
> On 9/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) Even though most modern block ciphers are designed to be fast, it's still
> > faster to apply a reasonably quick compression scheme to whomp 16K of data
> > down to 5-6K and encry
On 9/22/05, Edward Shishkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. It is impossible to implement all features in one file plugin.
> Checksuming means a low
> performance: in order to read some bytes of such file you will need
> first to read the whole file
> to check a checksum (isnt it?). So it will be
pt/decrypt 16K.
Two questions. One, does this mean that compression will usually be
performed before encryption (which to me, sounds like it appears to be
what would be the best method here)?
Second, will plugins be layerable, e.g. can I use a compression plugin
and a _seperate_ encryption plugin on
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:11:59 CDT, David Masover said:
> > Because sometimes it is useful to compress data before encryption since
> > compression
> > destroys vulnerable regular structure of some special files (like *.html)
>
> Although I'd imagine some algorithms are fairly resistant against th
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:03:32 +0400, Edward Shishkin said:
> Checksuming means a low
> performance: in order to read some bytes of such file you will need
> first to read the whole file
> to check a checksum (isnt it?).
No. Almost all modern networking gear is *perfectly* able to do incremental
Edward Shishkin wrote:
Fred Schaettgen wrote:
On Thursday, 22. September 2005 18:41, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
Or is there another reason why you packed both things into one plugin?
Because sometimes it is useful to compress data before encryption since
compr
Fred Schaettgen wrote:
On Thursday, 22. September 2005 18:41, Edward Shishkin wrote:
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
I think there should be file attribute that says whether it is
compressed/whatever/ or not.
Right. All the plugins responsible for compression, etc.. will be observed
On Thursday, 22. September 2005 18:41, Edward Shishkin wrote:
> Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
> >I think there should be file attribute that says whether it is
> >compressed/whatever/ or not.
>
> Right. All the plugins responsible for compression, etc.. will be observed
> via pseudo-file interface
>
>
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
I think there should be file attribute that says whether it is
compressed/whatever/ or not.
Right. All the plugins responsible for compression, etc.. will be observed
via pseudo-file interface
This way, it would be possible to
compress already existing files. At l
I think there should be file attribute that says whether it is
compressed/whatever/ or not. This way, it would be possible to
compress already existing files. At least, if filesystem is so
flexible as everyone say, it would be possible.
On 9/20/05, Edward Shishkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guy
PFC wrote:
>
An interesting idea: select the algo and a range of compression
levels per file,
>>>
>
> A simple check on wether it's an already compressed file (using
> file extension and magic number) should be quite easy to do and cheap.
>
> Now, intrigued by this lzo thingie,
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 9/20/05, David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Probably lzo, which is already used for other things like network
connections (ssh, openvpn, and so on). The nice thing about lzo is that
it's fast, faster than gzip or bzip2, and gets decent compression -- not
grea
An interesting idea: select the algo and a range of compression
levels per file,
A simple check on wether it's an already compressed file (using file
extension and magic number) should be quite easy to do and cheap.
Now, intrigued by this lzo thingie, I ran a little benchmark on my emai
michael chang schrieb:
On 9/20/05, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An interesting idea: select the algo and a range of compression
levels per file, but select the actual compression level at flush time
based on some estimate of how loaded the system is.. :)
Probably not worth it eve
On 9/20/05, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An interesting idea: select the algo and a range of compression
> levels per file, but select the actual compression level at flush time
> based on some estimate of how loaded the system is.. :)
> Probably not worth it even though the amount
On 9/20/05, David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably lzo, which is already used for other things like network
> connections (ssh, openvpn, and so on). The nice thing about lzo is that
> it's fast, faster than gzip or bzip2, and gets decent compression -- not
> great, but decent. I don'
On 9/20/05, Clay Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forgive me if this has been answered recently, but I haven't gotten my
> last two dozen e-mails for today yet.
>
> Regarding the compression plugin, what sort of compression can one
> expect from it?
[snip]
Just a g
Clay Barnes wrote:
> Also: Is the algorithm set in stone? If so what is it? If not, what
> is it now/expected to be?
Probably lzo, which is already used for other things like network
connections (ssh, openvpn, and so on). The nice thing about lzo is that
it's fast, faster than gzip or bzip2,
Forgive me if this has been answered recently, but I haven't gotten my
last two dozen e-mails for today yet.
Regarding the compression plugin, what sort of compression can one
expect from it? I know that compression of files like bz2 will vary (in
that they'll be essentially uncompre
me. I am just happy that there is
at least one serious filesystem with compression available.
does it mean reiser4 has a compression plugin available now?
Guys, it is not available. It still requires a work and the creation
interface
is on a discussion level.
Edward.
there is
at least one serious filesystem with compression available.
does it mean reiser4 has a compression plugin available now?
--
Tomek
http://wpkg.org
So yes, hmm sad that there is not compress-option - it could be easily
doable with the files in the pseudo directory of every single file.
This way one could select which files to compress and which not -
however thats not that important for me. I am just happy that there is
at least one serious fi
Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
Hello
Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Hello again,
I am currently re-installing my linux system and I would like to use
reiser4 since I think its really powerful and great (and is well
written too ;) ).
However, will it be possible to convert a non-compressed reiser4
p
Hello
Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> I am currently re-installing my linux system and I would like to use
> reiser4 since I think its really powerful and great (and is well
> written too ;) ).
>
> However, will it be possible to convert a non-compressed reiser4
> partition to a compr
Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Hello again,
I am currently re-installing my linux system and I would like to use
reiser4 since I think its really powerful and great (and is well
written too ;) ).
However, will it be possible to convert a non-compressed reiser4
partition to a compressed one withought
Hello again,
I am currently re-installing my linux system and I would like to use
reiser4 since I think its really powerful and great (and is well
written too ;) ).
However, will it be possible to convert a non-compressed reiser4
partition to a compressed one withought the need of deleting data o
43 matches
Mail list logo
