| 1 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> Hi all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I had this random idea that many of our distfiles are .tar.gz while more |
| 5 |
> efficient compression methods exist. So I did some testing for fun: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others. |
| 8 |
> A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 - |
| 9 |
> roughly 30% more efficient! |
| 10 |
> A comparison run with 7zip gave me 590M files, so bzip2 seems to be |
| 11 |
> quite good. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I don't think repackaging every .tar.gz as .tar.bz2 is a reasonable |
| 14 |
> option (breaks MD5 digests, we lose the fallback download from the |
| 15 |
> homepage), but maybe this motivates people to save bandwidth and migrate |
| 16 |
> their packaging to bzip2. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Patrick, |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
did you benchmark CPU load? Often bzip2 takes 3x as long to |
| 21 |
uncompress a package than bzip. Often, the space savings doesn't |
| 22 |
justify the cost of how long it takes for the cpu to decompress the |
| 23 |
archive. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-ryan |
Archives