![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi! > > CMD | NET TIME (in seconds) | OUTPUT SIZE (in bytes) > > ---------+--------------------------------+------------------------ > > cp | 35.94 (usr 0.23, sys 14.16) | 2,121,438,352 (100.0%) > > lzf | 54.30 (usr 35.04, sys 13.10) | 1,959,473,330 ( 92.3%) > > gzip -1 | 200.36 (usr 186.84, sys 11.73) | 1,938,686,487 ( 91.3%) > > ---------+--------------------------------+------------------------ > > > > Although it is too early to say lzf's compress ratio is good > > enough, its compression speed is impressive indeed. > > As you say, the speed of lzf relative to gzip is impressive. > > However if the properties of the kernel dump mean that it is not suitable for > compression then surely it is not efficient to spend any time on it. > > >And the > > result also suggests that it is too early to give up the idea of > > full dump with compression. > > Are you sure? :-) > If we are talking about systems with 32GB of memory then we must be taking > about organisations who can afford an extra 100GB of disk space just for > keeping their kernel dump files. > > I would expect that speed of recovery would always be the primary concern. > Would you agree? Notice that suspend2 project actually introduced compression *for speed*. Doing it right means that it is faster to do it compressed. See Jamie Lokier's description how to *never* slow down. Pavel -- if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-10-12 07:12 [W:0.311 / U:0.090 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||