AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20090504105046.1f99e04e@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:mail.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<narayan.venkat@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@exch1.onstor.net/INBOX	0	102AB4F33EBBDB4C91915B145C8E9FB31284F9BE1A@exch1.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 10:50:56 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: Narayan Venkat <narayan.venkat@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: cougar marketing wins
Message-ID: <20090504105056.77fc1f26@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <102AB4F33EBBDB4C91915B145C8E9FB31284F9BE1A@exch1.onstor.net>
References: <20090428170851.46bf2e05@ripper.onstor.net>
	<102AB4F33EBBDB4C91915B145C8E9FB31284F9BE1A@exch1.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

New update.  I discovered on Friday that I goofed up my last run,
pointed it at the wrong place.

Now I discovered that I'm going to have to redo them all, as I tested
the bandwidth to those leopards and somewhere they are bottlenecked at
10/100, even though John Rogers swore on a stack of bibles that they
were gigabit.

I don't feel doing the tests with 10/100 connectivity speed is worth
looking at.

a


On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:31:29 -0700 Narayan Venkat
<narayan.venkat@onstor.com> wrote:

> Andy,
> 
> Any update on your compression experiment?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Narayan Venkat
> Vice President, Marketing
> ONStor Inc. (www.onstor.com)
> Tel: (408) 963-2404
> Cell: (408) 221-4297
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Sharp 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:09 PM
> To: Narayan Venkat
> Subject: cougar marketing wins
> 
> Hey, I'm just sayin'....
> 
> 
> Here is the source directory:
> 
> \\md\Users\andys\public\dev
> 
> I removed all the .gif's, .jpg's, .gz's, .tgz's that I could find, so
> the rest should be pretty compressible.  It's about 2.4 GB or about
> 2.29 GiB.  I await your trials.
> 
> You should also try gzip-6 (gzip-9 is the default, BTW.  you might
> have heard something different elsewhere) which should prove
> interesting as it should give 90%-95% of the compression at about 10%
> of the CPU time.  So a file that takes about 5 seconds to compress
> with gzip-9 seems to take 0 seconds with gzip-6, but compresses 95%
> as much.  Using level 6 gzip compression is one of my secret weapons.
> 
