similar to: compression of source and target files

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

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

> 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

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

Thanks; I did not think of that. I have just run a few basic tests with both rsync and OpenSSH in their default settings, when it comes to compression. SSH compression seems to have a very slight edge. However, I surmise that, given the number of knobs available on both sides (OpenSSH, in particular) one can tinker with settings almost endlessly in either side, probably being able to end up with

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4383 Summary: Idea: Store files in compressed format and visa versa Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy:

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

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

Hello zfs-discuss, Is someone actually working on it? Or any other algorithms? Any dates? -- Best regards, Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com

Hello, I am wondering if there are any possibilities to save HDD space used by emails by compressing content (not just attachements). It would be many 1000s email boxes and probably each using lot of space so would be easier if we can just compress emails somehow. Thanks, Cristian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I''m about to enable compression on my ZFS filesystem, as most of the data I intend to store should be highly compressible. Before I do so, I''d like to ask a couple of newbie questions.... First - if you were running a ZFS without compression, wrote some files to it, then turned compression on, will those original uncompressed files ever get compressed via some background work,

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

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Rafael Espíndola > <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think this is a leftover from the days we used to have a *byte*code >>> and use bzip2 on it :-) >>> >>> I will try to clean it up. >> >> The attached

Hi, I am generating a large number of graphs with pdf() and incorporating them in pdf document using pdflatex. According to the pdf() help: 'pdf' writes uncompressed PDF. It is primarily intended for producing PDF graphics for inclusion in other documents, and PDF-includers such as 'pdftex' are usually able to handle .compression. But pdflatex incorporates the R

Hi List, I noted that compressing music like Merzbow or other Japanese chaotic noise-bands usually results in very low compression rates. That means, that the resulting .flac-file is nearly as big as the initial .wav-file. Other kinds of music get compressed much better. Any explanation? Regards Thomas -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not

Hello, Darik Horn sent a pull request adding support for LZ4. LZ4 is supposed to be a very fast compression algorithm, especially when it comes to decompression. I did a quick benchmark with zlib, LZO and LZ4. Now, there are many benchmarks you can find online, but most of them deal with compressing large files. Tinc on the other hand has to compress small packets individually. So I did the

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> I think this is a leftover from the days we used to have a *byte*code >> and use bzip2 on it :-) >> >> I will try to clean it up. > > The attached patch removes all references to compression from llvm-ar, > llvm-ranlib and related libraries. > > Is it OK? >

Is it possible to have rsync do a transform on each file before sending it? This would be useful for things like individually compressed or encrypted backups, or in my case, syncing lossy copies of my FLAC music to an mp3 player or laptop. If not, is there demand for such a feature? It seems like it would be of use to many people, and in principle it shouldn't interfere with incremental file

I think that there is a very simple way to encode audio files with lossless compression around 35%. (the compression may be improved if we can lose some lsb bits around 30% for 2 and 25% for 3) Other lossless audio encoder I've seen reach at maximum a compression of 48% (*.flac, *.ape) So the questions are: 1- Is someone interested in another encoder? 2- If true n.1 may it be included in ogg