>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:27:02AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > Had a small discussion with Pavel.
> > We agree that original code is quite complicated and is hard to understand
> > the final compression format used.
> >
> > So we would like to have some public discussion about the topic.
> >
> > I personally agree we should have a single code deciding the compression
> > to use.
>
> I definitely agree here. For one, having different compression being
> used depending on whether the qxl driver is used or not is unexpected
> (eg if you set image compression to glz, lz will still be used during
> initial bootup, and then will 'switch' to glz later on. I haven't looked
> at the code, so there might be good reasons for that).
>
> >
> > This is the list of actual compressions:
> > - AUTO_GLZ;
> > - AUTO_LZ;
> > - QUIC;
> > - GLZ;
> > - LZ;
> > - LZ4.
> > A client can also decide to disable compression.
> >
> > The AUTO_XXX looks like they should use QUIC as a fallback if XXX is not
> > possible or if an image with high graduality is detected.
>
> (side question, do we have numbers on compression ratio and cpu usage
> for quic/lz/glz/lz4?)
>
Brief and raw of a Windows replay capture
Images MB before MB after Ratio CPU time
LZ4 193 24.21 2.43 10.04% 0.04
QUIC 204 23.11 1.66 7.18% 0.44
GLZ 190 20.05 1.2 5.99% 0.14
LZ 202 20.42 2.04 9.99% 0.15
So why use Quic ?
Frediano
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel