Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:00:25 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@altavista.net> To: John LoVerso <loverso@infolibria.com> Cc: Alex Zepeda <jazepeda@pacbell.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bzip2 in src tree Message-ID: <388ED3C9.4B20E139@altavista.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001241351170.254-100000@localhost> <388DCF1F.19385402@infolibria.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John LoVerso wrote: > > 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: > [...] > 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. All this apply only when download cost is not considered. IMHO it is clean that CPU time nowadays is much less expensive than the online time, at least for dialup connections. Also you should take into consideration that usually you packing package ONCE, while number of users downloading this package could be very huge, so online costs savings from decreased download time multiplied by the number of downloads and divided by the costs associated with required CPU time increase will be considerable. -Maxim 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?388ED3C9.4B20E139>