Исходное сообщение
"Первый бета-выпуск ОС ubuntuBSD, сочетающей окружение Ubuntu..." Отправлено Аноним, 24-Мрт-16 15:17
> но и степень сжатия - ощутимо > ниже LZO. Да ну? А пацаны то и не знали: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/35667 >> LZ4 gives a slightly worse >> compression ratio compared with LZO (and much worse than Zlib) >> but compression speeds are *generally* similar to LZO. >> Decompression tends to be much faster under LZ4 compared >> with LZO hence it makes more sense to use LZ4 compression >> when your workload involves a higher proportion of reads. А оно вот как – Аноним прочитал http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/35642 ловко опустил > The small blocks do not give much space for data reuse and the results > for LZO and LZ4 are very close, the difference was not measurable in my > tests. The raw speed of compression/decompression of the algorithms is > different, but we have to measure it under real loads where eg. the > decompression speedup does not weigh much in the overall performance. зато очень интересно интерпретировал пассаж про лицензию, попутно сделав вывод, что lz4 хуже, но взяли его в zfs из-за лицензии ... > The situation was different for ZFS. The original compressor was LZJB, > that was derived from LZRW1 and tweaked for speed. The ratio suffered a > from that. LZO is better in this regard and the licensing issues do not > prevent adding it to btrfs, unlike ZFS (though there were other > concerns). LZ4 is released under BSD license, so it was a natural choice IMO. Зато про лицензию ввернул и проприетарь – молодец.

Ваше сообщение
Имя*:
EMail:	Для отправки ответов на email укажите знак ! перед адресом, например, !user@host.ru (!! - не показывать email). Более тонкая настройка отправки ответов производится в профиле зарегистрированного участника форума.
Заголовок*:
Сообщение*:	>> но и степень сжатия - ощутимо >> ниже LZO. > Да ну? А пацаны то и не знали: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/35667 >>> LZ4 gives a slightly worse >>> compression ratio compared with LZO (and much worse than Zlib) >>> but compression speeds are *generally* similar to LZO. >>> Decompression tends to be much faster under LZ4 compared >>> with LZO hence it makes more sense to use LZ4 compression >>> when your workload involves a higher proportion of reads. > А оно вот как – Аноним прочитал http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/35642 > ловко опустил >> The small blocks do not give much space for data reuse and the results >> for LZO and LZ4 are very close, the difference was not measurable in my >> tests. The raw speed of compression/decompression of the algorithms is >> different, but we have to measure it under real loads where eg. the >> decompression speedup does not weigh much in the overall performance. > зато очень интересно интерпретировал пассаж про лицензию, попутно сделав вывод, что lz4 > хуже, но взяли его в zfs из-за лицензии ... >> The situation was different for ZFS. The original compressor was LZJB, >> that was derived from LZRW1 and tweaked for speed. The ratio suffered a >> from that. LZO is better in this regard and the licensing issues do not >> prevent adding it to btrfs, unlike ZFS (though there were other >> concerns). LZ4 is released under BSD license, so it was a natural choice IMO. > Зато про лицензию ввернул и проприетарь – молодец.
	Введите код, изображенный на картинке: