Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:54:53 01/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2000 at 12:12:44, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On January 20, 2000 at 04:39:38, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On January 20, 2000 at 03:30:03, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>I can say that for native NTFS (WinNT) disk compression, there was no noticable >>>impact on performance for any program. I had things like TBs (Edwards) >>>compressed, and performance wasn't slowed at all. Before Nalimov compression, I >>>had those compressed that way also, with no noticable performance hit. >>>I think NTFS compression is a bit conservative, though, and if you use something >>>else, performance might be a bit less. YMMV. :) >>> >>>Jeremiah >> >>Probably NTFS was smart enough to detect that it couldn't recompress the data, >>and consequently left the actual data alone. Some compression implementations >>are not so clever. > >For which data? NTFS compressed the uncompressed Nalimov TBs from a total of >~22GB to about 10GB. The Edwards TBs were compressed from 2.5GB to about 1GB, >IIRC. Earlier in the thread I mentiioned "the latest" tablebases. By this, I meant the compressed Nalimov ones. I would be surprised if NTFS could do a better job compressing the databases than the code written specifically to do so. Maybe you can compare the sizes and see. Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.