On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday 28 May 2007 04:37:04 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> As you mentioned in your mail, you are using lzo1x_1_11_compress()
> which is slower than what I ported (which is same as what is exported
> by miniLZO). So, can you please test with the version ported - this
> is found in lzo/src/lzo1x_1.c (or in minilzo.c).
> Also, can you please use 'take 5' for your next testing?
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin
Will do. (that's DBITS=15, correct?)
That's D_BITS=14
However, when I averaged it 100 times, lzo1x_1_11_compress() showed better
speed than your implementation - about 1.5% faster.
I don't yet have any explanation for this.
The *unsafe*
decompressor, however, only shows about a 1.2% speed advantage over the safe
decompressor.
DRH
-
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]
