On 6/30/07, roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
some other funny benchmark numbers:
i wondered how performance/compressratio of lzjb,lzo and gzip would compare if
we have optimal compressible datastream.
since zfs handles repeating zero`s quite efficiently (i.e. allocating no space)
i tried wri
some other funny benchmark numbers:
i wondered how performance/compressratio of lzjb,lzo and gzip would compare if
we have optimal compressible datastream.
since zfs handles repeating zero`s quite efficiently (i.e. allocating no space)
i tried writing non-zero values.
the result is quite inter
Those are interesting results. Does this mean you've already written lzo
support into ZFS? If not, that would be a great next step -- licensing
issues can be sorted out later...
Adam
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:40:48AM -0700, roland wrote:
> btw - is there some way to directly compare lzjb vs lzo
Hi roland,
roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> btw - is there some way to directly compare lzjb vs lzo compression -
> to see which performs better and using less cpu ?
>
> here those numbers from my little benchmark:
>
> |lzo |6m39.603s |2.99x
> |gzip |7m46.875s |3.41x
> |lzjb |7m7.600s |1.79x
btw - is there some way to directly compare lzjb vs lzo compression - to see
which performs better and using less cpu ?
here those numbers from my little benchmark:
|lzo |6m39.603s |2.99x
|gzip |7m46.875s |3.41x
|lzjb |7m7.600s |1.79x
i`m just curious about these numbers - with lzo i got better
>For what it's worth, at a previous job I actually ported LZO to an
>OpenFirmware
>implementation. It's very small, doesn't rely on the standard libraries, and
>would be
>trivial to get running in a kernel. (Licensing might be an issue, of course.)
just for my personal interest - are you speak
please be cautious with this benchmarks and don`t make early decisions based on
this.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:58:46PM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote:
> For what it's worth, at a previous job I actually ported LZO to an
> OpenFirmware implementation. It's very small, doesn't rely on the standard
> libraries, and would be trivial to get running in a kernel. (Licensing might
> be an
For what it's worth, at a previous job I actually ported LZO to an OpenFirmware
implementation. It's very small, doesn't rely on the standard libraries, and
would be trivial to get running in a kernel. (Licensing might be an issue, of
course.)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
