| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Nucrunch 0.1
Continuing from the benchmarks WVL posted in Doynamite 1.x:
I dusted off my unfinished nucrunch in December to pack just enough of the second page of Reutastic to give me some workspace for some precalculations. Pity I didn't schedule enough time to pack the entire demo, else it would have been ~90 blocks instead of 190, but I digress. I've spent bits of the past month cleaning up the code, optimizing the packer (mostly by porting it from python to rust :P), and adding reverse direction support.
It's still no more than a component, with an commandline packer and asm decrunch subroutine, but no tools yet for generating an executable from a single commandline. It does at least now support multiple input segments that are unpacked to their destination addresses, and it's also now useable enough to for me to do some benchmarking.
In short, doynamite's ratio looks pretty unbeatable for anything lz based; my ratio's almost identical despite a somewhat different encoding.
Where I can win though is speed at that ratio; nucrunch is usually ten to twenty percent faster. The one exception in the test corpus is 6.bin, where it's 20% slower; not sure why yet.
I've added the times for pucrunch -ffast below for to complete the comparison. Last two columns are nucrunch, and nucrunch -r (the latter decodes in reverse; should be a more useful component for single filers)
If anyone wants to have a play at this stage, poke me and I'll upload some source. Failing that I'll hold off until I at least have something that can make onefilers without any faffing about with relocating the last couple of pages by hand.
filesizes
# bin rle wvl-f wvl-s tc bb pu-f doyna nucru rnucr
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 11008 8020 4529 4151 4329 3383 3711 3265 3225 3230
2 4973 4314 3532 3309 3423 2648 3005 2512 2498 2490
3 3949 3498 2991 2617 2972 2187 2530 2108 2091 2093
4 7016 6456 4242 4085 4225 3681 3924 3617 3622 3614
5 34760 27647 25781 24895 25210 21306 21182 20405 20447 20516
6 31605 12511 11283 10923 11614 9194 9203 8904 8915 8894
7 20392 17295 12108 11285 11445 9627 9789 9289 9140 9144
8 5713 5407 4179 3916 3936 3251 3656 3132 3165 3187
9 8960 7986 6914 6896 6572 5586 6000 5430 5502 5486
filesize in %
# bin rle wvl-f wvl-s tc bb pu-f doyna nucru rnucr
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 100 72.9 41.1 37.7 39.3 30.7 33.7 29.7 29.3 29.3
2 100 86.7 71.0 66.5 68.8 53.2 60.4 50.5 50.2 50.1
3 100 88.6 75.7 66.3 75.3 55.4 64.1 53.4 53.0 53.0
4 100 92.0 60.5 58.2 60.2 52.5 55.9 51.6 51.6 51.5
5 100 79.5 74.2 71.6 72.5 61.3 60.9 58.7 58.8 59.0
6 100 39.6 35.7 34.6 36.7 29.1 29.1 28.2 28.2 28.1
7 100 84.8 59.4 55.3 56.1 47.2 48.0 45.6 44.8 44.8
8 100 94.6 73.1 68.5 68.9 56.9 64.0 54.8 55.4 55.8
9 100 89.1 77.2 77.0 73.3 62.3 67.0 60.6 61.4 61.2
number of frames to depack
# bin rle wvl-f wvl-s tc bb pu-f doyna nucru rnucr
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 0 11 13 14 15 58 54 27 22 22
2 0 5 7 7 9 38 39 17 14 14
3 0 4 6 6 7 28 31 12 10 10
4 0 8 9 9 10 43 51 20 17 18
5 0 36 39 42 59 300 298 119 104 107
6 0 20 25 25 37 126 152 49 59 59
7 0 22 25 26 32 138 139 60 51 52
8 0 6 8 8 10 43 47 18 16 17
9 0 9 12 12 16 73 81 32 28 29
kilobytes output per second
# bin rle wvl-f wvl-s tc bb pu-f doyna nucru rnucr
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 49.0 41.4 38.5 35.9 9.3 10.0 20.0 24.5 24.5
2 48.7 34.8 34.8 27.0 6.4 6.2 14.3 17.4 17.4
3 48.3 32.2 32.2 27.6 6.9 6.2 16.1 19.3 19.3
4 42.9 38.2 38.2 34.3 8.0 6.7 17.2 20.2 19.1
5 47.3 43.6 40.5 28.8 5.7 5.7 14.3 16.4 15.9
6 77.4 61.9 61.9 41.8 12.3 10.2 31.6 26.2 26.2
7 45.4 39.9 38.4 31.2 7.2 7.2 16.6 19.6 19.2
8 46.6 35.0 35.0 28.0 6.5 6.0 15.5 17.5 16.5
9 48.7 36.5 36.5 27.4 6.0 5.4 13.7 15.7 15.1
cycles per byte consumed
# bin rle wvl-f wvl-s tc bb pu-f doyna nucru rnucr
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 0 27 56 66 68 337 286 163 134 134
2 0 23 39 42 52 282 255 133 110 111
3 0 22 39 45 46 252 241 112 94 94
4 0 24 42 43 47 230 255 109 92 98
5 0 26 30 33 46 277 277 115 100 103
6 0 31 44 45 63 269 325 108 130 130
7 0 25 41 45 55 282 279 127 110 112
8 0 22 38 40 50 260 253 113 99 105
9 0 22 34 34 48 257 265 116 100 104
decrunch time for nucrunch/rnucrunch relative to doynamite
1: 81.5% (-18.5%) 81.5% (-18.5%)
2: 82.4% (-17.6%) 82.4% (-17.6%)
3: 83.3% (-16.7%) 83.3% (-16.7%)
4: 85.0% (-15.0%) 90.0% (-10.0%)
5: 87.4% (-12.6%) 89.9% (-10.1%)
6: 120.4% ( 20.4%) 120.4% ( 20.4%)
7: 85.0% (-15.0%) 86.7% (-13.3%)
8: 88.9% (-11.1%) 94.4% ( -5.6%)
9: 87.5% (-12.5%) 90.6% ( -9.4%)
|
|
... 95 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 2014 |
It's almost as if BB2 and Bitfire is the same code! :) |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Quoting Martin PiperVery slow LZMPi decompression cycles:
Hey, it's optimised for space not speed. :D
Ah, thank you!
First couple of speed related tables:
number of frames to depack
# bin rle wvl-f wvl-s LZMV25 tc LZMV4k rnucru nucrun bb2.0 bitfir doynax exomem pu-f LZMPi exoraw
- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1 0.0 11.5 13.5 14.5 13.7 15.5 16.9 21.3 22.0 24.3 24.4 27.5 57.9 54.7 79.3 0.0
2 0.0 5.5 7.5 7.5 8.4 9.5 9.6 13.6 13.7 15.1 15.1 17.5 38.5 39.6 53.1 0.0
3 0.0 4.5 6.5 6.5 6.2 7.5 7.1 10.1 10.0 10.9 10.9 12.5 28.5 31.9 41.4 0.0
4 0.0 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.4 10.5 11.5 17.1 16.6 18.1 18.1 20.5 53.1 52.0 75.4 0.0
5 0.0 36.5 39.5 42.5 46.6 59.5 58.4 100.6 101.4 107.7 107.4 119.5 295.9 298.6 431.0 0.0
6 0.0 20.5 25.5 25.5 38.2 37.5 35.8 56.6 57.9 61.5 62.0 49.5 142.3 152.8 220.0 0.0
7 0.0 22.5 25.5 26.5 29.1 32.5 35.0 50.0 50.3 54.5 54.5 60.5 139.2 139.8 205.8 0.0
8 0.0 6.5 8.5 8.5 8.9 10.5 10.3 15.8 15.6 16.9 17.0 18.5 44.8 47.7 65.1 0.0
9 0.0 9.5 12.5 12.5 14.2 16.5 16.6 27.2 27.1 29.6 29.4 32.5 78.9 81.7 117.4 0.0
kilobytes output per second
# bin rle wvl-f wvl-s LZMV25 tc LZMV4k rnucru nucrun bb2.0 bitfir doynax exomem pu-f LZMPi exoraw
- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1 46.9 39.9 37.2 39.3 34.8 31.9 25.3 24.5 22.2 22.1 19.6 9.3 9.9 6.8
2 44.3 32.5 32.5 29.0 25.6 25.4 17.9 17.7 16.1 16.1 13.9 6.3 6.1 4.6
3 43.0 29.7 29.7 31.2 25.8 27.2 19.2 19.4 17.7 17.8 15.5 6.8 6.1 4.7
4 40.4 36.2 36.2 36.5 32.7 29.9 20.1 20.6 18.9 19.0 16.8 6.5 6.6 4.6
5 46.6 43.1 40.0 36.5 28.6 29.1 16.9 16.8 15.8 15.8 14.2 5.8 5.7 3.9
6 75.5 60.7 60.7 40.5 41.3 43.2 27.3 26.7 25.2 25.0 31.3 10.9 10.1 7.0
7 44.4 39.1 37.7 34.3 30.7 28.5 20.0 19.8 18.3 18.3 16.5 7.2 7.1 4.9
8 43.0 32.9 32.9 31.4 26.6 27.2 17.7 18.0 16.5 16.4 15.1 6.2 5.9 4.3
9 46.2 35.1 35.1 30.9 26.6 26.4 16.1 16.2 14.8 14.9 13.5 5.6 5.4 3.7
- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
~ 0.0 47.8 38.8 38.0 34.4 30.3 29.9 20.1 20.0 18.4 18.4 17.4 7.2 7.0 4.9 0.0
- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
|
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Quoting MagerValp@ChristopherJam: Lovely! The pattern I see here is that there are three speed classes. You have the fast LZSS variants (WVL, LZMV), you have the efficient but slow LZ + Huffman (exo, pu), and in the middle you have nu/bb2/bitfire/doynax.
It also makes it obvious that LZMV (and maybe tc) needs speed optimization to be competitive :)
Yes, I've done some quick graphs in Matplotlib (no lables yet) and there's some quite pronounced clustering.
exomem, pu-f & LZMPi are all below 10k per second, with exomem by far the smallest.
rle is also in a class of it's own; definite winner for speed if only light compression is required.
Quoting JackAsserIt's almost as if BB2 and Bitfire is the same code! :)
Yes, they are remarkably close! I suspect identical encoding for a startÂ… |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1105 |
 |
| |
Fungus
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 691 |
An how about a comparison of uncompressor size? |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Size is definitely pertinent. nucrunch is hardly small at the moment.
nucrunch 342
rnucrunch 394
tinycrunch 151
|
| |
HCL
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 728 |
Comparing B2 and Bitfire.. The encoders are generating the same format, however not compatible. It has been the same since the first release of ByteBoozer1.0. ByteBoozer2.0 and Bitfire (and probably most others today) are searching through *all* possible ways to win bits, where as Bb1.0 has a faster gready algorithm. Remember it was running on the c64 also(!), but that's why B2 compresses better. B2 and Bitfire encoders do have rather different ways of achieving their goals, which explains the small differences we see in compression rate.
B2 and Bitfire decrunchers are more identical than the encoders. I was working like hell to find another code design than Bitbreaker's that still wasn't slower, but i guess he already examined all those possibilities before me :). So i guess we sort of agree on this rather optimal way of decrunching lz-code.. Now i'm very qurious on what new tricks Nucrunch is bringing up to the surface :). |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
LZMV4k decruncher is 137 bytes, LZMV256 is 89 bytes. |
| |
Martin Piper
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 726 |
Depends if you're including all the post BASIC setup and memory moving code. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Quoting Martin PiperDepends if you're including all the post BASIC setup and memory moving code.
Just the decrunch engine; assume something else has loaded the data/set $01/cleared interrupts etc and the source and destination areas placed so as to not need special handling. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 - Next |
