Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932424AbVJLJKF (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:10:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932425AbVJLJKF (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:10:05 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:21681 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932424AbVJLJKE (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:10:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:09:45 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Felix Oxley Cc: OBATA Noboru , hyoshiok@miraclelinux.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Dump Summit 2005 Message-ID: <20051012090945.GN12682@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20051010084535.GA2298@elf.ucw.cz> <20051012.172844.59463643.noboru.obata.ar@hitachi.com> <200510121002.59098.lkml@oxley.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200510121002.59098.lkml@oxley.org> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1747 Lines: 41 Hi! > > CMD | NET TIME (in seconds) | OUTPUT SIZE (in bytes) > > ---------+--------------------------------+------------------------ > > cp | 35.94 (usr 0.23, sys 14.16) | 2,121,438,352 (100.0%) > > lzf | 54.30 (usr 35.04, sys 13.10) | 1,959,473,330 ( 92.3%) > > gzip -1 | 200.36 (usr 186.84, sys 11.73) | 1,938,686,487 ( 91.3%) > > ---------+--------------------------------+------------------------ > > > > Although it is too early to say lzf's compress ratio is good > > enough, its compression speed is impressive indeed. > > As you say, the speed of lzf relative to gzip is impressive. > > However if the properties of the kernel dump mean that it is not suitable for > compression then surely it is not efficient to spend any time on it. > > >And the > > result also suggests that it is too early to give up the idea of > > full dump with compression. > > Are you sure? :-) > If we are talking about systems with 32GB of memory then we must be taking > about organisations who can afford an extra 100GB of disk space just for > keeping their kernel dump files. > > I would expect that speed of recovery would always be the primary concern. > Would you agree? Notice that suspend2 project actually introduced compression *for speed*. Doing it right means that it is faster to do it compressed. See Jamie Lokier's description how to *never* slow down. Pavel -- if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address - 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/