| 1 |
Hi! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 4 |
> A different question is whether in the cases where parallel bzip2 makes |
| 5 |
> sense, is it really the best solution? xz is outperforming bzip2's |
| 6 |
> compression ratio for large files (for an informal comparison, see bug |
| 7 |
> 434350). And xz is faster at decompression, which offsets the parallel |
| 8 |
> advantage to some degree. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
As for the performance side of things: |
| 11 |
http://blog.i-no.de/archives/2008/05/08/index.html#e2008-05-08T16_35_13.txt |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yes, that's four years old and needs to be redone with modern |
| 14 |
implementations (and machines). Will do so this weekend (I hope). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Regards, |
| 17 |
Tobias |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
printk (KERN_ALERT "You are screwed! " ...); |
| 21 |
linux-2.6.6/arch/i386/kernel/efi.c |
Archives