Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > The Monday 22 December 2008 17:26:17 Eugene V. Lyubimkin, you wrote : >> Nelson Castillo wrote: >>>> No, don't. I'm just wondering why. Actually I did a test in the same >>>> order (bzip2 and the pbzip2) on a tar of my picture directory and on a >>>> video. I just don't understand why my 2 runs aren't much quicker with >>>> pbzip2. >>> Your test data is already compressed :-) You will not be able to >>> compress it much more. >> But is this really reason to take twice CPU time with no significant reduce >> of time? Though maybe it's just peculiarity of pbzip2 implementation. > > > That's my concern indeed. I don't understand why using twice more calculations > the time is the same or bigger. > > I've just tested a comparison on kernel directory and it gives : > > 17:24 robotux@simplet ~% time bzip2 kernel.tar > bzip2 kernel.tar 152,65s user 1,56s system 94% cpu 2:42,67 total > 17:27 robotux@simplet ~% time pbzip2 kernel2.tar > pbzip2 kernel2.tar 142,18s user 1,78s system 181% cpu 1:19,17 total > > I think pbzip2 in unstable doesn't like my core 2 duo It seems you misread your times. Look at last time, "total". -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com Ukrainian C++ Developer, Debian Maintainer, APT contributor
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature