"Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * disks are probably cheaper than CPUs
>
> * it looks to me like 7z may also be RAM-hungry; and there are probably
> better ways to use the RAM, too
The main problem with the currently available 7z implementation is that
it has been written in C+
> Hello Marc,
>
> Sunday, July 29, 2007, 9:57:13 PM, you wrote:
>
> MB> MC eastlink.ca> writes:
> >>
> >> Obviously 7zip is far more CPU-intensive than
> anything in use with ZFS
> >> today. But maybe with all these processor cores
> coming down the road,
> >> a high-end compression system is
MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the heels of the LZO compression thread, I bring you a 7zip compression
> thread!
>
> Shown here as the open source system with the best compression ratio:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression#Comparative
>
> Shown here on a SPARC system with the bes
Hello Marc,
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 9:57:13 PM, you wrote:
MB> MC eastlink.ca> writes:
>>
>> Obviously 7zip is far more CPU-intensive than anything in use with ZFS
>> today. But maybe with all these processor cores coming down the road,
>> a high-end compression system is just the thing for ZFS
MC eastlink.ca> writes:
>
> Obviously 7zip is far more CPU-intensive than anything in use with ZFS
> today. But maybe with all these processor cores coming down the road,
> a high-end compression system is just the thing for ZFS to use.
I am not sure you realize the scale of things here. Assumi
On the heels of the LZO compression thread, I bring you a 7zip compression
thread!
Shown here as the open source system with the best compression ratio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression#Comparative
Shown here on a SPARC system with the best compression ratios and good CPU
usage: h
