Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 22:30:19 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: bzip2(1) compression for manpages, Groff and Texinfo docs Message-ID: <20030507203018.GA48927@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20030507223638.D40030-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> References: <20030507185153.GA14729@moghedien.mukappabeta.net> <20030507223638.D40030-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 10:49:16PM +0300, Narvi wrote: > > On Wed, 7 May 2003, Matthias Buelow wrote: > > > Narvi writes: > > > > >Really - except for a very limited set of streaming applications with hard > > >latency rules, going away from gzip to a BWT based compressors is a Very > > >Good Thing (tm). > > > > for things like manpages and texinfo-files, even compress(1) would be > > more than sufficient, if it weren't for license issues (but then again, > > compress is still included, so what.) And it surely is a lot faster, > > especially than bzip2. > > I definately don't agree on texinfo files - these aren't all that small. > For example, the sizes of gcc.info.gz vs gcc.info.bz2 are: > > 306122 May 7 22:40 gcc.info.bz2 > 400320 May 7 22:41 gcc.info.gz > > which is a quite significant difference. I picked the file because of size > and not change of compression ratio, or check all the files (just in case > there are any benchmarking paranoids around). On the speed side, the speed > of bunzip2 only matters if the speed difference between it and gunzip were > user perceptible on even not really up to date at all hardware, which is > not the case AFAICT. Here you are wrong. On old hardware the difference in speed (and the difference in memory needed) between bunzip2 and gunzip is quite noticable. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030507203018.GA48927>