From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 7 19:10:31 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A07D106567A for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:10:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from asmtpout025.mac.com (asmtpout025.mac.com [17.148.16.100]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718538FC17 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:10:31 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from cswiger1.apple.com ([17.209.4.71]) by asmtp025.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 64bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0LD2006K0NX8Y220@asmtp025.mac.com> for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:10:21 -0800 (PST) X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1010190000 definitions=main-1012070133 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2010-12-07_09:2010-12-07, 2010-12-07, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 From: Chuck Swiger In-reply-to: <20101207073013.GA59001@ravenloft.kiev.ua> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:10:20 -0800 Message-id: <8637F403-A98A-4814-8769-BC713858962E@mac.com> References: <20101207073013.GA59001@ravenloft.kiev.ua> To: Alex Kozlov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: trying to use xz on manuals. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:10:31 -0000 On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Alex Kozlov wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:50:44PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: >> 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. Agreed, gzip is faster than XZ, but for manpages the difference is so small that a human won't notice any difference. The slowest machine I have around is a Pentium III @ 933 MHz, and it's getting (typical results from 5 trials, on a FreeBSD 7.4-PRERELEASE system) shows: $ time gzcat CC.1.gz > /dev/null real 0m0.021s user 0m0.013s sys 0m0.007s $ time xzcat CC.1.xz > /dev/null real 0m0.063s user 0m0.055s sys 0m0.007s Regards, -- -Chuck PS: I installed bash just to get millisecond-accuracy for the timing. :-) Is there any way to convince the default /bin/sh or /usr/bin/time to output the same...?