On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 02:36:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > I ran benchmarks on the new miniLZO and LZ4 on 64bit. LZ4 is generally slower > than snappy/lzo in the micro benchmarks. And the reason why you measured worse speed for LZ4 although (AFAICT) everybody else's measurements claim the opposite is quite simple: likely due to a copy&paste error you did not benchmark LZ4 at all: https://github.com/andikleen/snappy-c/blob/master/glue.c#L282 274 void test_lz4(char *map, size_t size, char *fn) 275 { 276 int i; 277 int err; 278 size_t outlen = size * 2; 279 char *out = xmalloc(outlen); 280 char *buf2 = xmalloc(size); 281 282 BENCH(fastlz, "lz4", fn, NULL); ^^^^^^ 283 284 free(out); 285 free(buf2); 286 } (LZ4 is on it's track towards kernel) david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html