for what it's worth: qcow with "lzo -9" would become 4155352 bytes (bigger than original zlib qcow).
yet it's true at the compression and decompression stages that it feels faster... On 7/4/06, Elefterios Stamatogiannakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree Lzma and zlib are pretty much equivalent, so there is pretty much nothing to be gained except slightly more compression. On the other hand with lzo (1) there would be quite a considerable speed improvement at the cost of compression. It could also mean that reading on the qcow format could some times be faster (with compressible data) than reading directly from the hard disk. lefteris (1) http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/ Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Christian MICHON wrote: > >> how about also adding lzma compression for qcow ? > > Why lzma? We already have a dependency on zlib, why not just take that? > > Ciao, > Dscho > > > _______________________________________________ > Qemu-devel mailing list > Qemu-devel@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel _______________________________________________ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
-- Christian _______________________________________________ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
