Drop support to compressed modules?

Hey,

I'd like to ask people the following question: why are you using
compressed modules? Is it only for the disk space or is there any
performance related reason?

While fixing a bug in kmod related to using compressed modules (that
already existed in module-init-tools) we stopped to think about these
questions. Dave made a couple of benchmarks and performance wise it's
better to use uncompressed modules than modules with gz or xz
compression. However the benchmark was done in only 1 computer. I do
expect people with slow storage to have different numbers though. Does
anyone have these numbers?


About the bug, I think it's fixed in
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-modules/msg00846.html. Need to test
a bit more before rolling out a new release.


Regards,
Lucas De Marchi

On Friday 21 September 2012 17:41:44 Lucas De Marchi wrote:

I'd like to ask people the following question: why are you using
compressed modules? Is it only for the disk space or is there any
performance related reason?

i've only seen it to save on disk space
-mike

On Friday 2012-09-21 23:41, Lucas De Marchi wrote:

While fixing a bug in kmod related to using compressed modules (that
already existed in module-init-tools) we stopped to think about these
questions. Dave made a couple of benchmarks and performance wise it's
better to use uncompressed modules than modules with gz or xz
compression. However the benchmark was done in only 1 computer. I do
expect people with slow storage to have different numbers though. Does
anyone have these numbers?

What benchmark should be run?