| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 18:27 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 08:50 -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Patrick, |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > did you benchmark CPU load? Often bzip2 takes 3x as long to |
| 7 |
> > uncompress a package than bzip. Often, the space savings doesn't |
| 8 |
> > justify the cost of how long it takes for the cpu to decompress the |
| 9 |
> > archive. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I did not compare CPU load. Maybe I should do that :-) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> But the average user will take longer to download than to uncompress, so |
| 14 |
> my rationale for this experiment was space reduction "at all costs". The |
| 15 |
> 15% average gain should outweigh CPU issues. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Also - on my test system I managed to _compress_ at 1,5MB/s. If anyone |
| 18 |
> could provide some performance numbers for slower systems it'd be |
| 19 |
> easier to evaluate the tradeoff. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm sure somebody *cough* vapier *cough* could find you a slow enough |
| 22 |
machine to compare against. Perhaps something in the double-digits of |
| 23 |
MHz. *grin* |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 27 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 28 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 29 |
Games - Developer |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives