Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:30:13 +0200 From: Alex Kozlov <spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua> To: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com>, Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua Subject: Re: trying to use xz on manuals. Message-ID: <20101207073013.GA59001@ravenloft.kiev.ua>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:50:44PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: > On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Chuck Swiger wrote: >> On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Alex Kozlov wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:03:50AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: >>>> .xz smaller than .gz, but effective is about 96.2%:-(. >>> Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression for base man's >>> to bz2 or xz doesn't make much sense. >> Oh, agreed. The issue with small files is that they will always take up >> at least one sector [*]; different compression routines don't gain any >> benefit if they don't change the number of sectors needed to store the file. >> More than half of the manpages end up as 1K .gz catman files as it is; >> ~90% are 2K or smaller. > It might make sense if XZ decompression were significantly > faster than GZip decompression. (Especially since man pages > are decompressed much more often than they are compressed.) It's not. Bigest man from the base, FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT Sat Oct 23 amd64, CPU: Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU T4400 @ 2.20GHz (2194.55-MHz K8-class CPU), average of 3 tries: $ls -l CC.1* -rw-r--r-- 1 kozlov kozlov 584775 Dec 7 09:14 CC.1 -rw-r--r-- 1 kozlov kozlov 161663 Dec 7 09:14 CC.1.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 kozlov kozlov 131580 Dec 7 09:13 CC.1.xz $cat CC.1.?z >/dev/null $time xzcat CC.1.xz >/dev/null real 0m0.032s user 0m0.028s sys 0m0.000s $time gzcat CC.1.gz >/dev/null real 0m0.012s user 0m0.008s sys 0m0.000s -- Adios
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101207073013.GA59001>