Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Dec 1997 14:41:09 +1100 | From | Mitch Davis <mjd#> | Subject | Re: OFFTOPIC: Re: bzip2 for kernel dists? |
| |
Jordan Mendelson wrote: > > So, bzip2 yeilds better compression, it's free (no patent restrictions on > algs, etc), and it's available in binary & source form for Linux & a number > of other OSs. What's keeping kernels from being distributed like this?
Other people's mileage may vary, but I have found bunzip2 to be absolutely hideously SLLOOOWWW. The following test shows bunzip2 to be 10 times slower to decompress than gunzip:
mjd@taco [~/tx] time cat gimp-0.99.15-data-extras.tar.* > /dev/null
real 2.3 user 0.0 sys 0.2 mjd@taco [~/tx] time cat gimp-0.99.15-data-extras.tar.* > /dev/null
real 0.1 user 0.0 sys 0.1 mjd@taco [~/tx] time bunzip2 -t gimp-0.99.15-data-extras.tar.bz2
real 26.8 user 26.2 sys 0.1 mjd@taco [~/tx] time gunzip -t gimp-0.99.15-data-extras.tar.gz
real 2.1 user 1.9 sys 0.0
Note this is under HP-UX, but the results are very similar under Linux. I guess it depends on whether you have CPU cycles to burn.
Mitch.
-- | mailto:mjd#NOSPAM@nsmd.aus.hp.com | Not an official view of: | | mailto:mjd#NOSPAM@alphalink.com.au | OpenView Telecom Division | | Remove the #NOSPAM to send me mail | Hewlett Packard Australia |
| |