*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 4/28/2003 at 6:25 PM Timothy Miller wrote:
>rmoser wrote:
>
>>So what's the best way to do this? I was originally thinking like this:
>>
>>Grab some swap data
>>Stuff it into fcomp_push()
>>When you have 100k of data, seal it up
>>Write that 100k block
>>
>>But does swap compress in 64k blocks? 80x86 has 64k segments.
>>The calculation for compression performance loss, 256/size_of_input,
>>gives a loss of 0.003906 (0.3906%) for a dataset 65536 bytes long.
>>So would it be better to just compress segments, whatever size they
>>may be, and index those? This would, of course, be much more efficient
>>in terms of finding the data to uncompress. (And system dependant)
>>
>>
>We're not using DOS here. x86 has arbitrarily-sized segments. It is
>the PAGES you want to swap, and they are typically 4k.
>
>
>BTW, I see swap compression as being more valuable for over-loaded
>servers than for PDA's. Yes, I see the advantage for a PDA, but you
>only get any significant benefit out of this if you have the horsepower
>and RAM required for doing heavy-weight compression. If you can't
>compress a page very much, you don't benefit much from swapping it to RAM.
Feh. Selectable compression is the eventual goal. If you want serious
heavy-weight compression, go with fcomp2. Ahh heck I'll attatch the
.plan file for fcomp2; this is rediculously RAM and CPU intensive in good
implimentation, so don't even think for a second that you'll want to use
this on your cpu-overloaded boxen.
And no implimenting this right away, it's too much to code!
--Bluefox Icy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 22:00:31 EST