[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4cefeab80705260417h43d4d8a9s3f55b7eb3c19396c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:47:30 +0530
From: "Nitin Gupta" <nitingupta910@...il.com>
To: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>
Cc: "Richard Purdie" <richard@...nedhand.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Michael-Luke Jones" <mlj28@....ac.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm-cc@...top.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 3
Hi Pavel,
Just did some benchmarking; results below.
On 5/25/07, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
>
> What is the performance difference between safe and unsafe version?
>
File size: 256K
- Following as tests for original test code - not any kernel port of this.
- Test with each block size repeated 5 times - taken avg. of these 5 runs.
- Same file used for each test.
- Used lzotest utility (included with LZO 2.02) for testing.
Blocksize Comp* DU* DS* Speed%
4 59.356 211.526 195.260 7.689
8 54.623 202.712 188.369 7.075
16 50.342 196.482 183.988 6.358
32 47.499 189.800 177.455 6.504
64 44.148 178.724 167.201 6.447
128 42.125 170.229 159.257 6.445
256 41.830 155.035 146.115 5.753
* All speeds in MB/sec
Comp = LZO1X-1
DU = Decompress (unsafe)
DS = Decompress (safe)
Speed% = ((DU-DS)/DU)*100
I have yet to see how the kernel ports compare against this original version.
Cheers,
Nitin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists