Hi,
I really like your work on this, the analysis and the results.
Is it possible to run the same benchmark on the Ben NanoNote? 1.5 G should fit on the memory card and as far as I understood you the ZIM software has been already ported to the NN?
Because I wonder how the caches impact the result on the NN and what the optimal settings would be. As far as you say that the caches don't have a real impact on "big" hardware, we could just go with the optimal settings for the NN as defaults in the zimlib.
If you have some data from your analysis (like the actual result tables etc.) I ask you to just put them into the wiki. When I have time I will create a nice Benchmark article where we illustrate why we have choosen algorythms, compression and cache sizes as they are.
Have a good time,
Manuel
Am 23.12.2009 23:08, schrieb Tommi Mäkitalo:
Hi,
I've done some benchmarking. I have created 2 zim files from my collection of 640000 articles. One with bzip2 and one with lzma. I burnt both files on a DVD. A zim benchmark program (can be found at zimlib/zimDump/zimBench) gives interesting results. The benchmark program reads linear and random access. The linear results are not that interesting but the random access.
Reading the bzip2 compressed file gives me about 12 articles per second. Lzma about 38. So uncompressing lzma is much faster.
Creating the files took with bzip2 2:09 and with lzma 3:25.
Size is almost identical (both 1.5G).
Zimlib manages 2 caches. One for directory entries and one for uncompressed data. Varying them makes no big difference. Looks like the OS cache does a good job already. This may of course look different on other hardware. I had a fast CPU and a slow device.
Tommi _______________________________________________ dev-l mailing list dev-l@openzim.org https://intern.openzim.org/mailman/listinfo/dev-l