You are not logged in.
Between aufs2 not being in the kernel, and systemd, and the move to symlink /bin and /usr/bin, etc, is it possible to compress /usr?
I'd still like to do it if it is reasonably manageable to do. My hard drive and its slow speed is a cause of much angst for me.
Offline
BtrFS can do compression on the fly. Do you mean like that?
Offline
I mean even more compression. It's my understanding that btrfs compression is limited by the 4k block size, whereas the squashfs+aufs method can have large block sizes, and thus better compression.
Offline
@ drcouzelis- On the wiki there are old instructions on how to use a unionfs and squashfs as a way to make /usr writeable while taking advantage of everything else being expanded into memory from a squashfs.
Yes this is possible, but it would take a lot of work not only to get going, but also to maintain. This is beause as you have already figured out, aufs2 is not in the kernel, but exists as a patchset. There is a pf-kernel user repo though, and the pf patchset includes aufs2. So I guess there is the possibility that it won't necessarily have to be as much a PITA to maintain as doing all of it manually.
Offline
Offline
you can always use the aufs_friendly kernel in AUR, and aufs3, also in AUR.
why you'd want to or need to compress /usr in today's world is beyond me.
Offline