Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:32:14 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Yu-Shun Wang <yushunwa@isi.edu> Cc: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: IPComp question Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0102020228360.3835-100000@achilles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0102020009250.931-100000@amc.isi.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Yu-Shun Wang wrote: > Hi, > > What you pointed out below is true. But I am more > interested in the relative performance since the number > I measured were under exactly the same setup and traffic > condition. I am just curious why IPComp was _relatively_ > (and signigicantly) slower than most of the encryption > algorithm. So I guess bandwidth is probably not the best > pointer since what I end up comparing was really the > implementations of different encryption/compression > algorithms which are CPU-bound in this case. > > regards, > > yushun. I don't understand why you're comparing encryption and compression algorithms. Yes, encryption does a lot of bit twiddling, which takes up processor time. However, compression has to do a lot of comparisons, looking back and ahead all the time. It's quite amazing to me that a compression algorithm even comes close to the speed of an encryption algorithm, frankly. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.31.0102020228360.3835-100000>