> Well, does somebody have numbers (memory, time, compression) as to what
> is reasonable?
I didn't make any testing, but the report came from the observation
that result was +300kb on 9 mb. The compression was slow, but
decompression is not affected.
pavel
> isn't xz extremely slw with -9?
> maybe it wasn't a bug, bit intentionally not used,
> as that huge extra amount of time doesn't result in
> that many bytes saved.
Compared to the total time of make dist its IMHO
acceptable. But configurability won't hurt of course.
Pavel
isn't xz extremely slw with -9?
maybe it wasn't a bug, bit intentionally not used,
as that huge extra amount of time doesn't result in
that many bytes saved.
is the compression level configureable somehow?
Regards, Andreas
At Monday 12 April 2010, Ralf Wildenhues
wrote:
> The analysis is required in any case. That doesn't mean it is
> necessary to mention it in the log message; because even if the
> analysis is hard work, in this case it is straight-forward. IOW,
> the size of the log message doesn't have to r
