> Again, lemmie get on my soap box, and ask have you looked at the man page,
> and compared the memory required when using -s to the memory required by
> gzip?
Actually, lemmie get on my soap box and ask have you measured the time that
bunzip2 takes to run? While it does give better compression in many cases, it
is just too SLOW. Using "-s" on decompression just makes it slower.
I played on a test machine (PII 233MHz 192Mb, spare ST34502LW disk) with some
large package binaries:
17991680 netscape-communicator-4.08.tar
19660800 netscape-communicator-4.61.tar
21934080 netscape-communicator-4.7.tar
time gzip *tar
80.284u 1.608s 1:23.66 97.8% 113+616k 3+528io 0pf+0w
time gunzip *gz
7.984u 1.392s 0:12.84 72.9% 115+674k 498+971io 0pf+0w
time bzip2 *tar
220.777u 1.718s 3:44.74 98.9% 61+8531k 936+471io 0pf+0w
time bunzip2 *bz2
64.601u 1.928s 1:07.30 98.8% 61+4855k 4+964io 0pf+0w
time bzip2 -s *tar
205.854u 1.938s 3:32.95 97.5% 61+2388k 1012+492io 1pf+0w
time bunzip2 -s *tar
121.860u 2.054s 2:05.65 98.6% 61+3167k 2+965io 0pf+0w
A decompression time of 13 seconds vs. 67 seconds (or 125 seconds with "-s).
Given that ports and packages need a multi-CD anyway, I don't think the speed
penalty of bzip2 is worth it.
John
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
