On 13/05/2013 9:04 p.m., babajaga wrote:
Good idea.
It should not be too complicated to modify "storeUfsWrite"/"storeUfsRead"
for example to include some type of compression.
However, question is, how effective it would be, as there are many graphic
file types, not easily compressable. So it woul
On 14/05/2013 2:44 a.m., babajaga wrote:
First of all, question was more "how to do", and not "why to do".
Anyway, there can be two reasons:
- You might reduce stress on busy disks because of smaller transferes. And
more buffering before transfer.
- One step into bandwidth saving towards the clie
First of all, question was more "how to do", and not "why to do".
Anyway, there can be two reasons:
- You might reduce stress on busy disks because of smaller transferes. And
more buffering before transfer.
- One step into bandwidth saving towards the client.
Although, in general you are correct.
On Monday 13 May 2013 02:04:16 babajaga wrote:
> Good idea.
> It should not be too complicated to modify "storeUfsWrite"/"storeUfsRead"
> for example to include some type of compression.
> However, question is, how effective it would be, as there are many graphic
> file types, not easily compressab
Good idea.
It should not be too complicated to modify "storeUfsWrite"/"storeUfsRead"
for example to include some type of compression.
However, question is, how effective it would be, as there are many graphic
file types, not easily compressable. So it would result in a lot of wasted
CPU cycles.
