Hi, Attached is tester code used for testing. (developed by Daniel Hazelton -- modified slightly to now use 'take 6' version for 'TinyLZO') Cheers, Nitin On 5/28/07, Nitin Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:
(Using tester program from Daniel)
Following compares this kernel port ('take 6') vs original miniLZO code:
'TinyLZO' refers to this kernel port.
10000 run averages:
'Tiny LZO':
Combined: 61.2223 usec
Compression: 41.8412 usec
Decompression: 19.3811 usec
'miniLZO':
Combined: 66.0444 usec
Compression: 46.6323 usec
Decompression: 19.4121 usec
Result:
Overall: TinyLZO is 7.3% faster
Compressor: TinyLZO is 10.2% faster
Decompressor: TinyLZO is 0.15% faster
Attachment:
lzo1x-test-4.tar.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6
- From: "Bret Towe" <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6
- From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6
- From: Daniel Hazelton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6
- References:
- [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6
- From: "Nitin Gupta" <[email protected]>
- [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64: Reflect the relocatability of the kernel in the ELF header.
- Next by Date: Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.
- Previous by thread: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 6
- Index(es):
 |