[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100214100716.18d9dfe5@hyperion.delvare>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:07:16 +0100
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: mirrors@...nel.org, lasse.collin@...aani.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, users@...nel.org,
"FTPAdmin Kernel.org" <ftpadmin@...nel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [kernel.org 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists