[lkml]   [1997]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: OFFTOPIC: Re: bzip2 for kernel dists?
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Mitch Davis wrote:

> Jordan Mendelson wrote:
> >
> > So, bzip2 yeilds better compression, it's free (no patent restrictions on
Yes it does, At a cost of speed.
> > 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
[timing stuff snipped]
> 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.
> --
> | | Not an official view of: |
> | | OpenView Telecom Division |
> | Remove the #NOSPAM to send me mail | Hewlett Packard Australia |

I saw the speed difference too. As happens so much in compression, the
tighter you compress something, the longer it takes. Leave it as an
option for:

1) People who understand how to use it
2) Have a hideously slow internet connection
3) And have CPU cycles to burn

Phil Brutsche

"Be of stout heart, Number One. We've handled the Borg. We can
certainly handle Admiral Jellico." - Jean-Luc Picard


 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.096 / U:2.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site