search for: compressive

The simple ordinary yum update of CentOS 5.3 spits a bunch of transaction check errors regarding packages perl-IO-Compress-Zlib-2.015-1.el5.rf.noarch and perl-IO-Compress-2.020-1.el5.rf.noarch which is supposed to replace perl-IO-Compress-Base-2.015-1.el5.rf.noarch: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/IO/Compress/Adapter/Deflate.pm from install of

flight 10593 linux real [real] http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/10593/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking): test-amd64-amd64-xl-sedf 13 guest-localmigrate.2 fail pass in 10581 test-i386-i386-pv 16 guest-start.2 fail pass in 10570 test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-amd 7 redhat-install

Folks, I'd like to get expert's opinion on which compression level is suitable for lld's -compress-debug-section=zlib option, which let the linker compress .debug_* sections using zlib. Currently, lld uses compression level 9 which produces the smallest output in exchange for a longer link time. My question is, is this what people actually want? We didn't consciously choose

flight 22084 xen-unstable real [real] http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/22084/ Failures :-/ but no regressions. Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking: test-amd64-amd64-xl-pcipt-intel 9 guest-start fail never pass test-armhf-armhf-xl 5 xen-boot fail never pass test-amd64-i386-xend-winxpsp3 16 leak-check/check

Hi Rui, What's the intended advantage for compressing the debug sections? - (i) Improved link time through smaller IO / (ii) Improved Load / startup time for the debugger / (iii) Smaller exe with debug info for distribution / disk space? For i) and ii) how much this is worth it depends on balance of storage bandwidth to compression (i) / decompression (ii) bandwidth. For spinning drives it

Hi, Is there a way in which rsync's -z compression (zlib) utility can be benchmarked? I'm trying to compare the compression ratio between rsync and external compression tools like gzip and bzip2. Are there any advantages to using rsync's internal compression mechanism specified with the -z option compared to solely applying external compression i.e. bzip2 to the files and invoking

Also not an expert, but would it make sense for this to be configurable at a fine-grained level, perhaps with another option, or an extension to the compress-debug-sections switch interface? That way users who care about the finer details can configure it themselves. And we should pick sensible options for the default. James On 2 August 2018 at 11:08, Pavel Labath via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

> As to (3), in most cases, I believe it is rare to distribute executables with debug info widely > I think it is at least less important than (1). Agreed. > I think (1) is definitely the case, and that's also true for a distributed build system with which a lot of object files are copied between machines. > My suggestion was to use compression level 9 when both -O2 and

Not really, as well as some sensitivity to the input data overall performance of the link with compression will depend on how this is implemented in lld - how is it parallelized? How is it chunked? Is it effectively pipelined with IO? Or, I wouldn't feel comfortable being able to make a recommendation to our end-users on whether to use this option or not based on my existing extensive

I''ve noticed that: - with x86-64 Fedora 15 DVD install images: - du -sh <ROOT VOLUME> was 36 GB - btrfs df | grep -i data have shown over 40 GB used - without - du -sh <ROOT VOLUME> is 34 GB - btrfs df | grep -i data have shown less then 34 GB used It seems that iso files are considered compressable while they may not be (and penalty is severe - 3x). Regards

Rsync supports the capability of compressing data before sending. So does OpenSSH. It would be probably be a waste of resources and time to enable both compression capabilities at the same time, but it is not clear to me whether, in general, it makes better sense to enable rsync compression or SSH compression. My first thought would be that SSH compression might yield better results, on the

Ah ah, the demo effect... just after I said I did not have much issues with repos... ^_^ A collegue installed some packages (for perconna) and since then a server insists on replacing 2 base packages with 2 rfx packages, even when I gave a lower priority to rfx... Installed: perl-IO-Compress-Base-2.020-127.el6.x86_64 Installed: 1:perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib-2.020-127.el6.x86_64 Installed:

Hello, I''m currently trying to understand how compression in btrfs works. I could not find any detailed description about it. So here are my questions. 1. How is decided what to compress and what not? After a fast test with a 2g image file, I''ve looked into the extents of that file with find-new and it turned out that only some of the first extents were compressed. The file was

Bellow, follows a proposal for a new opensolaris project. Of course, this is open to change since I just wrote down some ideas I had months ago, while researching the topic as a graduate student in Computer Science, and since I''m not an opensolaris/ZFS expert at all. I would really appreciate any suggestion or comments. PROJECT PROPOSAL: ZFS Compression Algorithms. The main purpose of

Why isn't the compression level added in a metadata block by the flac encoder itself (just like the encoder version)? In this way all programs that read the file can see what compression level was used. thx 2007/7/4, Scot Thompson <scot.thompson@cox.net>: > > This has been asked many times. The answer is no. I suggest saving the > compression level into a tag for future

"Using FLAC binary : /Users/Marcus/flac/test/../src/flac/flac Original file size 441044 bytes. Compression level 1, file size 421393 bytes. Compression level 2, file size 421393 bytes. Compression level 3, file size 373613 bytes. Compression level 4, file size 369517 bytes. Compression level 5, file size 369517 bytes. Compression level 6, file size 369517 bytes. Compression

Hi, I just installed 2009.06 and found that compression isn''t enabled by default when filesystems are created. Does is make sense to have an RFE open for this? (I''ll open one tonight if need be.) We keep telling people to turn on compression. Are there any situations where turning on compression doesn''t make sense, like rpool/swap? what about rpool/dump? Thanks, ~~sa

On 2020-09-07 11:21:13 [+1000], Darren Tucker wrote: > The zstd part would be a larger discussion because we would need to > either carry it as a Portable patch or have zstd added to OpenBSD > base, and I don't know if that would be accepted. Do you have any > performance numbers for zstd in this application? A key stroke is here 10 bytes of raw data which zstd compresses usually

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9864 Summary: Allow permanent compression of destination files Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org ReportedBy: me at haravikk.com

Hello again I have a file from SPSS in .sav format. when I run library(foreign) cvar<-as.data.frame(read.spss("c:\\NDRI\\cvar\\data\\cvar2rev3.sav")) I get a warning Warning message: c:\NDRI\cvar\data\cvar2rev3.sav: Compression bias (0) is not the usual value of 100. The data appear to be OK, but I am concerned. (I tried searching the archives and the documenation for data