As I mentioned in the title, I’m not looking to save space, I want to test something. In Windows, you could use this option on a folder and still access the contents and run executables while keeping the folder and it’s contents compressed. The benefit to doing this, outside of saving space, is that files could potentially be accessed faster on slower storage devices.

As I’ve been trying to get the most out of some old storage devices I have, I think that something like this would be a great option for this. The only problem is that I’ve tried looking online for a way to do this but search engines are terrible. So, I’m posting about this here in case someone knows of a way to do this.

Edit: I forgot to specify this but I’m trying this for gaming. I know it’s not recommended to this but as a result, I mostly need something that’s not read-only. It might work fine for some games but this obviously wont work for all games.

    • vortexal@lemmy.mlOP
      61·
      4 hours ago

      I can tell that you didn’t read my post before commenting. But regardless, I’ll have to try that later as the device I’m testing first is too small for btrfs and I’m currently trying zfs first before I try one of my other storage devices.

          • mina86@lemmy.wtfEnglish
            11·
            2 hours ago

            Yes, I can read what OP wrote in response to my message. This information wasn’t provided in the post. What is your point?

            • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
              1·
              12 minutes ago

              that you write things i’m trying to understand the relevance of, like “This information wasn’t provided in the post.” and “the first comment points to btrfs”. The Reddit link you gave also points towards btrfs as well as very undetailed mentions of zfs. ze says “i’ve tried btrfs and it doesn’t work so i’m looking into zfs”, and you reply “use btrfs use btrfs or look into zfs”, a message whose helpfulness I struggle to understand.