At 03:25 AM 11/24/97 -0500, Umar Goldeli wrote:
>Err... decompressed for transmission?
>
>It would be better to compress for transmission and store uncompressed (or
>even compressed).. basically the important bit is to save on bandwidth..
>after all - regardless of the CPU hit, it's *much* cheaper to get more RAM
>and CPU in the long run..
There is a major problem here though when you are running a large cache and
have run into the maximum your hardware allows, which I would definately
believe is out there when you are referring to the Intel Architecture
(mainly ram).
As for CPU hit, the only way I can see of truely avoiding this, is allowing
some use of a plug in compression card. The problems here of course are
that the few that are available most likely have very little support,
and/or example code, and would have to vary for platform to platform, if
some platforms have them at all!
However it gets developed, use some easy "replacable" way to implement the
compression/decompression. Some type of negotiation header (at the start of
a persistent connection) wouldn't go amiss either...
-=[ Stuart Young (Aka Cefiar) ]=--------------------------------------
| http://amarok.glasswings.com.au/ | cefiar@amarok.glasswings.com.au |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jake and Elwood - The Blues Brothers! |
| "You traded it?! You traded the Blues Mobile for this?" |
| "No. For a microphone." "A microphone? OK I can see that." |
Received on Mon Nov 24 1997 - 02:06:04 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:37:42 MST