Re: bzip2 -- no longer non-us?
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Eichin <eichin@cygnus.com> writes:
Mark>
Mark> Indeed. On the egcs snapshot, we save 2M out of 9.5M; it takes 2x as
Mark> long as gzip -9, 4x as long as the default gzip (-6 according to the doc.)
Mark>
Mark> I believe it is worth considering this for install kits and possibly
Mark> for .deb internals [consider that we could leave the *control* element
Mark> gzip'ed, while bzip'ing the data element, in order to provide clean
Mark> upgrade warnings -- ie. the old dpkg could still parse the new format
Mark> and find the dependency on a new version of dpkg, or something like
Mark> that. This is *in addition* to updating the debian-binary tag, I
Mark> think...]
Mark>
Mark> bzip2: 263.85user 1.17system 5:14.89elapsed 84%CPU
Mark> bzip2 -9: 265.51user 1.36system 5:31.26elapsed 80%CPU
Mark> gzip: 82.28user 1.85system 1:51.52elapsed 75%CPU
Mark> gzip -9: 133.57user 1.62system 2:44.22elapsed 82%CPU
Mark>
Mark> -rw-r--r-- 1 eichin cygnus 7467838 Aug 27 19:53 egcs-970825.tar.bz
Mark> -rw-r--r-- 1 eichin cygnus 7467838 Aug 27 20:15 egcs-970825.tar.bz9
Mark> -rw-r--r-- 1 eichin cygnus 9637129 Aug 27 20:01 egcs-970825.tar.gz
Mark> -rw-r--r-- 1 eichin cygnus 9566095 Aug 27 20:07 egcs-970825.tar.gz9
However bzip2 is still too slow at uncompressing to be used in .deb
files IMHO. Here are my tests on the same file (Sun Ultra 200MHz) :
size Compr. time Decompr. (s)
gzip -9 9566095 74 6
bzip -9 7386799 218 78
bzip2 -9 7467838 150 44
bzip2 -1 8852622 115 26
bzip2 is several times (4->8) slower than gzip, so users of slow
machines may not be happy. And with the -1 option, savings are not so
huge.
--
Laurent.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: