2014-09-03 14:49 GMT+09:00 Andrey Rahmatullin <w...@debian.org>:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 07:32:49AM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
>> At the time, we (font team) decided to go with z9, the fact that
>> packages were arch:all (and therefore that the memory cost of
>> compression had only an impact on the machine of the developer who
>> builds packages), was a strong argument to go with z9.
>>
>> Of course, if we go to source only uploads for arch:all, we'll
>> reconsider this and eventually revert to default settings.
>>
>> (still, this memory impact has never been one on the good old Dell
>> Poweredge 2650 that sits in my garage and builds most of the font
>> packages I upload..... Of course, it is not a buildd that builds
>> hundreds of packages a day)
> Decompression costs were mentioned too, and they always matter (if they
> are significant). Does anyone have numbers about them?
>From xz(1),
Preset DictSize CompCPU CompMem DecMem
-0 256 KiB 0 3 MiB 1 MiB
-1 1 MiB 1 9 MiB 2 MiB
-2 2 MiB 2 17 MiB 3 MiB
-3 4 MiB 3 32 MiB 5 MiB
-4 4 MiB 4 48 MiB 5 MiB
-5 8 MiB 5 94 MiB 9 MiB
-6 8 MiB 6 94 MiB 9 MiB
-7 16 MiB 6 186 MiB 17 MiB
-8 32 MiB 6 370 MiB 33 MiB
-9 64 MiB 6 674 MiB 65 MiB
I think 65MIB for decompressing is OK with current hardwares as long
as it saves good amount of space and bandwidth.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/caee2ifxvpj4ra55f6pqc95lesew1ngk9wqg3p_gn2n3mjum...@mail.gmail.com
