Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!piglet!madler
From: madler@piglet.caltech.edu (Mark Adler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: DSP compression (was Re: Extended OS Part II)
Message-ID: <1990Oct3.163742.13055@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 90 16:37:42 GMT
References: <5122@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca> <MDIXON.90Oct2191924@thelonius.parc.xerox.com> <1990Oct3.061950.29203@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1990Oct3.084923.22547@visix.com>
Sender: news@nntp-server.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 13
Nntp-Posting-Host: piglet.caltech.edu


>> I could easily imagine the Unix compress command running several times
>> faster on the DSP.

> I can't.  The current 'compress' is basically I/O bound on any machine
> worth its salt.  Unless the DSP can talk to the disk faster than the

Then perhaps the 030 isn't worth its salt (or sand in the case of a chip).
Or maybe its the program, but Monitor shows the CPU at 100% utilization
during a compress or decompress.  Am I misreading Monitor?

Mark Adler
madler@piglet.caltech.edu