Would it be useful for Linux distributions iso?

[bigbruno]

Has a Linux iso ever been made using Dwarfs instead of Squashfs? Do you think it would be advantageous?

[mhx]

Has a Linux iso ever been made using Dwarfs instead of Squashfs?

I'm not aware of any. If you come across one, definitely let me know.

Do you think it would be advantageous?

I think it depends. For "regular" distro, you probably won't get much gain over SquashFS. OTOH, if we're talking about a live ISO with a large amount of highly redundant data (e.g., coming back to my original use case, a live ISO with 1000+ versions of Perl installed), then yeah, absolutely.

[mhx]

I've moved this to discussions for now as it doesn't really seem to be an issue.

[godane]

I added support to my custom linux-live scripts here: godane/linux-live@3595532

It works very well and i have done over 100 modules of dwarfs. Just know that i think each module takes up about 4mb of ram i think. I was mostly using this with media like pdfs and videos. The pdfs of some stuff did save a few gigabytes more of space vs squashfs with lzo.
PS I added these as options for dwarfs modules in later commit: -o readonly -o cachesize=32M

[krasnh]

@godane, almost two years have passed since your message, can you share new feedback on your use of dwarfs in Slax?
And if you share a working iso for checking from a flash drive, that would be absolutely wonderful. )
I looked at the official iso (https://ftp.sh.cvut.cz/slax/), I thought your edits got there, but no.

I also use a distribution with a similar modular design in the style of Puppy Linux, with squashfs.

[mhx]

Just know that i think each module takes up about 4mb of ram i think.

As mentioned already on #154, I'm planning to work on support for mounting multiple DwarFS images using a single process and using a shared cache. This should significantly reduce the memory overhead. This is tracked by #219.