Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:13:30 -0400 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] init: bzip2 or lzma -compressed kernels and initrds |
| |
Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > 2008/9/15 Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>: >> On Sunday 07 September 2008 00:48:31 Willy Tarreau wrote: >>> Hi Alain, >>>> +config KERNEL_LZMA >>>> + bool "LZMA" >>>> + help >>>> + The most recent compression algorithm. >>>> + Its ratio is best, decompression speed is between the other >>>> + 2. Compression is slowest. >>>> + The kernel size is about 33 per cent smaller with lzma, >>>> + in comparison to gzip. >>> isn't memory usage in the same range as bzip2 ? >> Last I checked it was more. (I very vaguely recall somebody saying 16 megs >> working space back when this was first submitted to busybox, but that was a >> few years ago...) >> >> A quick Google found a page that benchmarks them. Apparently it depends >> heavily on which compression option you use: >> >> http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks >> > > [...] > > Apologies if I'm sidetracking the discussion, but I'd like to coin a remark. > > For kernel/ramfsimage etc the best choice is the one that has the > fastest decompression (info on tukaani.org says gzip). > Rationale: as it uncompresses faster the system will boot faster. > > Of course this only holds if the background memory can hold that > image. For disk based systems, I assume this is not a problem at all, > but for embedded systems with all software in flash a higher > compression ration (e.g. lzma) can just make the difference between > fit and not fit (so in those cases lzma could just make your day). > Given the larger memory needed to decompress, it becomes a very interesting calculation in really small memory machines.
-- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
| |