βοΈ Features and Comparison#
Note that itβs just an incomplete list for the qualitative evaluation. The overall purpose of this is to show EROFS benefits compared to other in-kernel approaches when making technical decisions.
Feature (as of Linux 6.6) |
EROFS |
EXT4 |
SquashFS |
---|---|---|---|
Minimal block size |
512 B [1] |
1 KiB |
Unaligned[2] |
Inode size |
32/64 B |
128/256 B |
Varied [3] |
Limitation of total UIDs/GIDs |
No |
No |
Yes (64k)[4] |
Pre-1970 / ns timestamps |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Filesystem UUID |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Filesystem label (Volume label) |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Inline data |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Data compression |
Yes [5] |
No |
Yes |
Largest compression granularity |
1 MiB |
N/A |
1 MiB |
Default compression granularity |
1 Block [6] |
N/A |
128 KiB |
Fragments |
Yes |
N/A |
Yes |
Metadata compression |
No [7] |
N/A |
Yes |
Multiple compression algorithms |
Per-file |
N/A |
No |
Data deduplication |
Extent-based |
No? [8] |
No |
Extended attribute support |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
File-based distribution |
Yes |
No |
No |
External data (multi-devices) |
Yes |
No |
No |
POSIX.1e ACL support |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Direct I/O support [9] |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
FIEMAP support |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
FSDAX support |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Large folio support [10] |
Yes |
No |
No |