[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ users] XZ Migration discussion
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:28:39 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > So the gz option is unsurprisingly faster, setting up the source tree
> > takes almost 3 minutes less (-21%).
> If the download link had been slower than about 75 kB/s, the bz2 option
> would have been faster even on this old machine.
> With xz, download would be faster than bz2 and decompression would be
> somewhere between bz2 and gz --- at least on machines without notable
> memory constraints. xz's decompressor is more memory hungry than
> bzip2's one as far as I understand their manual pages. But at the
> default xz compressor setting of -6, the decompressor will still use
> just 10 MB and should therefore not cause even your 64 MB machine to
> swap all the time during decompression.

Note that, if memory consumption is really a concern on either end, we
could use xz -5, which still achieves much better compression than bz2
but doesn't require more memory for decompression.

Jean Delvare

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-14 10:09    [W:0.162 / U:0.584 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site