On Mo, 2015-08-31 at 10:55 +0200, Peter Lieven wrote: > Am 28.08.2015 um 13:56 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: > > On Do, 2015-08-27 at 14:46 +0200, Peter Lieven wrote: > >> I have observed that depending on the contents and the encoding it happens > >> that sending data as RAW sometimes would take less space than the encoded > >> data. > >> This is especially the case for small updates or areas with high color > >> images. > >> If sending RAW encoded data is beneficial allow a fall back to RAW encoding > >> for the framebuffer update. > > Do you happen to have some stats for this, especially the "small update" > > case? We might want to go straight to raw (without trying other > > encodings) for small updates, to avoid encoding things twice. > > I had a look at hextile, zrle, tight and zlib encoding. It seems that the case > that raw encoding is smaller never happens for zrle and tight. For zlib and > hextile its quite common, but there is no obvious mark for the size of the > update. It seems to heavily depend on the contents as assumed earlier.
Ok, taking patch as-is then. cheers, Gerd
