| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 2 |
<chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Michael Mol schrieb: |
| 4 |
>> A few months ago, I filed bug 423651 to ask that bzip2 on the install |
| 5 |
>> media be replaced with |
| 6 |
>> pbzip2. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If I understand correctly, pbzip2 depends on bzip2. So what you are |
| 9 |
> asking is that pbzip2 is preferred over bzip2 when both are installed, |
| 10 |
> and that pbzip2 is installed by default? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
pbzip2 uses libbzip2, which I understand bzip2 to also be a wrapper around. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I have so far encountered only one anecdotal case in #gentoo IRC where |
| 16 |
> pbzip2[symlink] caused problems in emerging a package. Disabling the |
| 17 |
> symlink flag made the problem go away. However I can't point to the |
| 18 |
> report right now, maybe someone with searchable backlog can uncover it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
pbzip2[symlink] is more or less the scenario I'd like to see. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> A different question is whether in the cases where parallel bzip2 makes |
| 24 |
> sense, is it really the best solution? xz is outperforming bzip2's |
| 25 |
> compression ratio for large files (for an informal comparison, see bug |
| 26 |
> 434350). And xz is faster at decompression, which offsets the parallel |
| 27 |
> advantage to some degree. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
xz is faster for decompression, by my inspiration case was during |
| 30 |
system installation, so compression. Last I looked, xz was still very |
| 31 |
slow for threaded compression. And it's not block-oriented, so I don't |
| 32 |
think that's really possible without loss of compression efficiency, |
| 33 |
anyway...and my use cases range from 4-8 physical cores. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
:wq |
Archives