Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:28:15 -0500 From: John LoVerso <loverso@infolibria.com> To: Alex Zepeda <jazepeda@pacbell.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bzip2 in src tree Message-ID: <388DCF1F.19385402@infolibria.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001241351170.254-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Again, lemmie get on my soap box, and ask have you looked at the man page, > and compared the memory required when using -s to the memory required by > gzip? Actually, lemmie get on my soap box and ask have you measured the time that bunzip2 takes to run? While it does give better compression in many cases, it is just too SLOW. Using "-s" on decompression just makes it slower. I played on a test machine (PII 233MHz 192Mb, spare ST34502LW disk) with some large package binaries: 17991680 netscape-communicator-4.08.tar 19660800 netscape-communicator-4.61.tar 21934080 netscape-communicator-4.7.tar time gzip *tar 80.284u 1.608s 1:23.66 97.8% 113+616k 3+528io 0pf+0w time gunzip *gz 7.984u 1.392s 0:12.84 72.9% 115+674k 498+971io 0pf+0w time bzip2 *tar 220.777u 1.718s 3:44.74 98.9% 61+8531k 936+471io 0pf+0w time bunzip2 *bz2 64.601u 1.928s 1:07.30 98.8% 61+4855k 4+964io 0pf+0w time bzip2 -s *tar 205.854u 1.938s 3:32.95 97.5% 61+2388k 1012+492io 1pf+0w time bunzip2 -s *tar 121.860u 2.054s 2:05.65 98.6% 61+3167k 2+965io 0pf+0w A decompression time of 13 seconds vs. 67 seconds (or 125 seconds with "-s). Given that ports and packages need a multi-CD anyway, I don't think the speed penalty of bzip2 is worth it. John To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?388DCF1F.19385402>