> Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>
>> 2008/9/15 Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>:
>>>
>>> On Sunday 07 September 2008 00:48:31 Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alain,
>>>>>
>>>>> +config KERNEL_LZMA
>>>>> + bool "LZMA"
>>>>> + help
>>>>> + The most recent compression algorithm.
>>>>> + Its ratio is best, decompression speed is between the other
>>>>> + 2. Compression is slowest.
>>>>> + The kernel size is about 33 per cent smaller with lzma,
>>>>> + in comparison to gzip.
>>>>
>>>> isn't memory usage in the same range as bzip2 ?
>>>
>>> Last I checked it was more. (I very vaguely recall somebody saying 16
>>> megs
>>> working space back when this was first submitted to busybox, but that was
>>> a
>>> few years ago...)
>>>
>>> A quick Google found a page that benchmarks them. Apparently it depends
>>> heavily on which compression option you use:
>>>
>>>
http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Apologies if I'm sidetracking the discussion, but I'd like to coin a
>> remark.
>>
>> For kernel/ramfsimage etc the best choice is the one that has the
>> fastest decompression (info on tukaani.org says gzip).
>> Rationale: as it uncompresses faster the system will boot faster.
>>
>> Of course this only holds if the background memory can hold that
>> image. For disk based systems, I assume this is not a problem at all,
>> but for embedded systems with all software in flash a higher
>> compression ration (e.g. lzma) can just make the difference between
>> fit and not fit (so in those cases lzma could just make your day).
>>
> Given the larger memory needed to decompress, it becomes a very interesting
> calculation in really small memory machines.
>
