Hi. On Wednesday 12 July 2006 20:09, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > We're doing something like you are, but I think we're using some other > option in LZF, because the resulting image size is 30-40% of the > uncompressed one. That's better for encryption later on, but obviously not > for speed. Maybe it's just that the caches compress better? 50% is common, but lower values are sometimes seen. Regards, Nigel -- Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia
Attachment:
pgpVhXuJTbBcc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
- Prev by Date: Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
- Next by Date: Re: DMA memory, split_page, BUG_ON(PageCompound()), sound
- Previous by thread: Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
- Next by thread: Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
- Index(es):