question/suggestion regarding copy2fs.

[sandras]

I was thinking the other day... When copying some extensions to the file system in ram, why not copy the extension itself to the file system instead of extracting the extensions contents to the file system? I mean, this behavior already appears when in cloud mode. This way, I think, we could save some ram. Of course every time you would use an application from the extension, the system would have to extract it, but I think the time needed to do that would not be noticeable. The great thing here would be the ram savings. What do you think? Am I missing something?

[gerald_clark]

You save even more by not copying to RAM.  The default is to mount from persistant storage.

[sandras]

You save even more by not copying to RAM.  The default is to mount from persistant storage.

Yes, I understand that, but there are scenarios where you may wanna load extensions to RAM. RAM is fast and copying extensions to it may improve performance. However, you might clog up RAM with your file system full of extensions, and this way you may even lose performance, instead of gaining it. That's why I'm suggesting to copy them  to ram unextracted from the .tcz packages. Squashfs saves quite a big amount of space.