On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:
quoted text
> On Monday 28 May 2007 04:37:04 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:

<snip>

quoted text
> >
> > As you mentioned in your mail, you are using lzo1x_1_11_compress()
> > which is slower than what I ported (which is same as what is exported
> > by miniLZO). So, can you please test with the version ported  - this
> > is found in lzo/src/lzo1x_1.c (or in minilzo.c).
> > Also, can you please use 'take 5' for your next testing?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nitin
>
> Will do.  (that's DBITS=15, correct?)
>

That's D_BITS=14

quoted text
> However, when I averaged it 100 times, lzo1x_1_11_compress() showed better
> speed than your implementation - about 1.5% faster.

I don't yet have any explanation for this.

quoted text
> The *unsafe*
> decompressor, however, only shows about a 1.2% speed advantage over the safe
> decompressor.
>
> DRH
>
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/