On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 9:45 AM Bohdan Khomutskyi <bkhomuts(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
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