5 ms·
This was true a few years back, nowadays it’s cheaper and faster to compress the data at rest as the bottleneck is frequently IO and storage space. Both, in ter
by notimetorelax 4y ago
This was true a few years back, nowadays it’s cheaper and faster to compress the data at rest as the bottleneck is frequently IO and storage space. Both, in terms of capacity and cost.
- microtonal 4y agoThis was true a few years back Only temporarily with SSDs. With spinning rust, it also often paid off to compress data. We'd store large treebanks compressed, because decompression was much faster than disk reads.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- LinAGKar 4y agoIt would still produce some CPU overhead, and thus some energy usage.
- IntelMiner 4y agoPresumably it's the tradeoff of CPU overhead versus disk and bandwidth (larger files take longer to copy into memory, which is also energy usage. And more bandwidth to shunt around Amazon's own network)
- SuperQue 4y agoThere's also a latency component. Since CPUs are fast enough to deflate in real-time now, your bottleneck for a read is your storage/network. Reducing the bytes read from storage improves the IO latency.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]