Messages in this thread | | | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Subject | Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability] | Date | Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:16:20 +1000 |
| |
Hi.
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 20:09, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > We're doing something like you are, but I think we're using some other > option in LZF, because the resulting image size is 30-40% of the > uncompressed one. That's better for encryption later on, but obviously not > for speed.
Maybe it's just that the caches compress better? 50% is common, but lower values are sometimes seen.
Regards,
Nigel -- Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |