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