[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:0.024 / U:0.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site