| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 08:50 -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Patrick, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> did you benchmark CPU load? Often bzip2 takes 3x as long to |
| 6 |
> uncompress a package than bzip. Often, the space savings doesn't |
| 7 |
> justify the cost of how long it takes for the cpu to decompress the |
| 8 |
> archive. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I did not compare CPU load. Maybe I should do that :-) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
But the average user will take longer to download than to uncompress, so |
| 13 |
my rationale for this experiment was space reduction "at all costs". The |
| 14 |
15% average gain should outweigh CPU issues. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Also - on my test system I managed to _compress_ at 1,5MB/s. If anyone |
| 17 |
could provide some performance numbers for slower systems it'd be |
| 18 |
easier to evaluate the tradeoff. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Patrick |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives