From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 17:07:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A21716A407; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:07:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1058E43D97; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:07:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.13.6/8.13.8) id k9DH7Xkm086350; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:07:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:07:33 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Tim Kientzle Message-ID: <20061013170733.GA2226@dan.emsphone.com> References: <200610131345.k9DDjYkD030561@lurza.secnetix.de> <452FC31C.2030505@kientzle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <452FC31C.2030505@kientzle.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, kientzle@freebsd.org, dougb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:07:43 -0000 In the last episode (Oct 13), Tim Kientzle said: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > >Meanwhile I had a quick look at the code: gzip uses some optimized > >assembler code ... Maybe that's the reason why gzip is noticeably > >faster. > > Anyone care to try this test on PPC, ARM, or Sparc? The only assembly in our match.S is for x86 and 68k. Newer gzips also include an ia64 version. > There's a move afoot to replace the GPL gzip with a more > openly-licensed gzip implemented on top of libz. I wonder if the > libz implementors have similar assembly optimizations that we should > be using? Odd. I actually disabled the assembly file in my tree because gcc generated 20%-faster code from deflate.c than the provided assembly code in match.S , at least on a pIII. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com