Ryan Phillips wrote:
> did you benchmark CPU load? Often bzip2 takes 3x as long to
> uncompress a package than bzip. Often, the space savings doesn't
> justify the cost of how long it takes for the cpu to decompress the
> archive.
How long does it take in time units defined as "the time required
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 18:27 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 08:50 -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
>
> > Patrick,
> >
> > did you benchmark CPU load? Often bzip2 takes 3x as long to
> > uncompress a package than bzip. Often, the space savings doesn't
> > justify the cost of how
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 08:50 -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> did you benchmark CPU load? Often bzip2 takes 3x as long to
> uncompress a package than bzip. Often, the space savings doesn't
> justify the cost of how long it takes for the cpu to decompress the
> archive.
I did not comp
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi all,
>
> I had this random idea that many of our distfiles are .tar.gz while more
> efficient compression methods exist. So I did some testing for fun:
>
> We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others.
> A short run over 477 distfile
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 06:30:23PM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others.
>> A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 -
>> roughly 30% more efficient!
>> A comparison run with 7zip gave m
On 30/04/06, Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I had this random idea that many of our distfiles are .tar.gz while more
efficient compression methods exist. So I did some testing for fun:
If you already have an old copy of the distfile it's much more
bandwidth efficient to trans
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:36 -0500, Jon Hood wrote:
> Hey Patrick,
> I agree, tar.bz2 is the way to go when possible, but I have many
> friends on old bsd-based systems and some old linux boxes I must
> maintain that don't have bzip2 support. Normally if I know a package I
> write is going to ne
Hey Patrick,
I agree, tar.bz2 is the way to go when possible, but I have many
friends on old bsd-based systems and some old linux boxes I must
maintain that don't have bzip2 support. Normally if I know a package I
write is going to need to go on an older system, I'll package it in both
formats,
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 10:30 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 06:30:23PM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others.
> > A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 -
> > roughly 30% more efficient
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 06:30:23PM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others.
> A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 -
> roughly 30% more efficient!
> A comparison run with 7zip gave me 590M files, so bzip2 seems t
Hi all,
I had this random idea that many of our distfiles are .tar.gz while more
efficient compression methods exist. So I did some testing for fun:
We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others.
A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 -
roughly 30%
11 matches
Mail list logo
