From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 10 09:58:04 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D7416A4CF; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:58:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.SNVACAID.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E3B43D1F; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:58:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kientzle@acm.org) Received: from acm.org ([66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBAHw2kX023949; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:58:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kientzle@acm.org) Message-ID: <3FD75EAA.1030305@acm.org> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:58:02 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20031006 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Chittenden References: <200312072352.hB7Nqsw6011333@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031208190305.GA956@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20031209070020.GC59494@perrin.nxad.com> <20031209165827.GA18959@dragon.nuxi.com> <3FD65A5D.6060407@acm.org> <20031210001724.GB16547@perrin.nxad.com> <20031210012353.GC30989@hub.freebsd.org> <20031210021328.GH16547@perrin.nxad.com> In-Reply-To: <20031210021328.GH16547@perrin.nxad.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: Kris Kennaway cc: Scott Long cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC src/sys/alpha/confGENERIC src/sys/sparc64/conf GENERIC src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC src/sys/pc98/conf GENERIC X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: kientzle@acm.org List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:58:04 -0000 Sean Chittenden wrote: >>>> 2) bunzip2 is about 10x slower than gunzip on my system. >>>> (Decompressing the openoffice tarball: 42s vs. 4s) >>> >>>10% speed vs. 20% disk on install CDs. *shrug* >> >>He said 1000%, not 10%. > > > Hrm... 11sec vs 1:15. Not something I'd consider a deal breaker for > the concept though. This is odd. From gprof: > > % cumulative self self total > time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name > 55.5 1.32 1.32 34720 0.04 0.04 __sys_write [8] > 22.4 1.85 0.53 2597 0.20 0.20 _read [15] > > I wonder if there isn't something that `bzip2 -d` is doing that's got > this so slow. I've been spending some time recently with the libbz and libz compression functions (testing the auto-detect and extract features of libarchive), so I've gotten pretty familiar with the relative time hit for these two libraries. The libbz library is a big time sink. (Which isn't too surprising, given the two algorithms; there was a good article in Dr. Dobb's a couple of years back describing the BZip algorithms. The 'deflate' algorithm used by gzip is described in an RFC. Read them and it's pretty obvious why bzip2 is so much slower. It's doing a lot more work.) Anyway, Kris/Tim, > you were right... 1000% slower, but not something I'd complain about > given we're talking about time differences in terms of a minute. > It's still faster than extracting a .CAB. :) -sc Absolutely. It's still a good idea. Tim