From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Edward Shishkin Subject: Re: reiser4.1 Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:09:01 -0800 Message-ID: <4226F04D.2090303@namesys.com> References: <4461b4b458db80949fe1830f90501153@hotmail.com> <1109776277.3504.469.camel@tribesman.namesys.com> <42263473.7050900@namesys.com> <37288019.20050303095520@wp.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <37288019.20050303095520@wp.pl> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Pysiak Satriani Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Pysiak Satriani wrote: >Hi > > > >>Compression is what will be in 4.1, not the repacker. At least, I hope >>edward gets it done soon..... >> >> >I've read an interview with Hans in the polish edition of Chip Special some >time ago. >I remember Hans saying that nowadays CPUs are so fast, they compress >faster than HDDs move the heads around and do the writes. > That is the fact. Moreover CPUs tends to develop faster then hard drives. > So compression, >if done properly, can be with no negative impact to speed. > >Can you say what level of compression with which processors would handle >it without speedloss? > We don't have comprehensive benchmarks as it is not quite stable. The following is some results for 'cp'. Note that the cpu time doesn't include flushing and compression: belka workstation: Dual Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz; 1G RAM; 36G ide partition; SMP on; Linux 2.6.9-rc1-mm5 reiser4 (Large keys) Creation of 20 linux source trees UNIX_FILES: (policy=tails) real 2m32.505s sys 1m18.876s df 3205900 (policy=smart) real 2m22.251s sys 1m1.100s df 3292936 CRYPTCOMPRESS FILES (64K compression): NONE real 2m27.448s sys 0m46.702s df 3214952 GZIP1 real 2m50.132s sys 0m44.647s df 1045660 LZO1 real 1m52.028s sys 0m44.779s df 1343188 LZRW1 real 1m50.048s sys 0m44.644s df 1504196 >Regards, >Maciej > > >