On Wednesday 12 October 2005 09:28, OBATA Noboru wrote:
> CMD | NET TIME (in seconds) | OUTPUT SIZE (in bytes)
> ---------+--------------------------------+------------------------
> cp | 35.94 (usr 0.23, sys 14.16) | 2,121,438,352 (100.0%)
> lzf | 54.30 (usr 35.04, sys 13.10) | 1,959,473,330 ( 92.3%)
> gzip -1 | 200.36 (usr 186.84, sys 11.73) | 1,938,686,487 ( 91.3%)
> ---------+--------------------------------+------------------------
>
> Although it is too early to say lzf's compress ratio is good
> enough, its compression speed is impressive indeed.
As you say, the speed of lzf relative to gzip is impressive.
However if the properties of the kernel dump mean that it is not suitable for
compression then surely it is not efficient to spend any time on it.
>And the
> result also suggests that it is too early to give up the idea of
> full dump with compression.
Are you sure? :-)
If we are talking about systems with 32GB of memory then we must be taking
about organisations who can afford an extra 100GB of disk space just for
keeping their kernel dump files.
I would expect that speed of recovery would always be the primary concern.
Would you agree?
regards,
Felix
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
