Proposal for solving CD Size problems

[Tim Schmidt]

On 9/28/06, Phillip Lougher <phillip.lougher at gmail.com> wrote:
> More than five times slower!  I'm glad I've resisted calls to move Squashfs
> over to LZMA compression, the compression improvements are not worth the speed
> slowdown.  I'm rather surprised SLAX and Puppy have moved over to Squashfs-LZMA.

Not worth the slowdown?  I hardly think there's enough information
here to make that conclusion.  It is slower, but (as shown earlier),
there is room for optimization.  Also, if the extra time spent
uncompressing data would normally be spent doing nothing, waiting for
hardware probing or the like, then there's no real loss.

In other words, performance in this case can only really be measured
on real hardware with a wall clock.  Measuring performance with
artificial benchmarks like this one isn't giving us the whole picture.

--tim