2009/3/31 Matthew Toseland <[email protected]>: [snip] > *should* be around 4 times slower, but this has not yet been tested. Larger > segments should increase reliability (vivee: how much?). Assuming that 16-bit > codecs achieve around 175MB/sec, this is very tempting... [snip]
Rather than switching to a wider RS code you should consider using an LDPC based block erasure code. http://planete-bcast.inrialpes.fr/article.php3?id_article=7 http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5170.txt Unlike RS these codes are not optimal (meaning you need slightly more data than the theoretical minimum), but they are vanishingly close to optimal and *significantly* faster for large numbers of blocks. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
