Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
A few more examples below. I think lzma isn't the right thing for the
archive. p7zip seems much faster, needs a lot less ram and compression
is similar.
> ..
>>> Should you be using the "-9" o
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> A few more examples below. I think lzma isn't the right thing for the
>>> archive. p7zip seems much faster, needs a lot less ram and compression
>>> is similar.
..
>> Should you be using the "-9" option? The lzma help output says this:
>>
>> -
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A few more examples below. I think lzma isn't the right thing for the
>> archive. p7zip seems much faster, needs a lot less ram and compression
>> is similar.
> ...
>> Lzma: 34306752 Bytes
>> Compressing
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A few more examples below. I think lzma isn't the right thing for the
> archive. p7zip seems much faster, needs a lot less ram and compression
> is similar.
...
> Lzma: 34306752 Bytes
> Compressing : 19410 mrvn 0 376m 370m R 97.2 36.9 1:5
A few more examples below. I think lzma isn't the right thing for the
archive. p7zip seems much faster, needs a lot less ram and compression
is similar.
I didn't measure compression times as I find them somewhat
irelevant. A deb is compressed once but downloaded and decompressed a
million times.
Daniel Baumann wrote:
> For the KDE flavour, this takes less than two minutes for downloading
> the packages, but about 5 minutes for unpacking them.
Measured how? Much of the work that dpkg is doing when it prints
"Unpacking replacement foo ..." is not uncompressing.
--
see shy jo
signature.a
[ debian spamfilters do hate me, resend with different address. ]
Russell Coker wrote:
> Last time I checked the gzip source had no assembler optimisation for systems
> other than i386. So if your 3.2GHz machine (which obviously would be a P4 at
> least not an i386) is running the AMD64 instruc
Russell Coker wrote:
> Last time I checked the gzip source had no assembler optimisation for systems
> other than i386. So if your 3.2GHz machine (which obviously would be a P4 at
> least not an i386) is running the AMD64 instruction set then you could
> probably improve performance by running
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 19 January 2007 02:19, Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For the KDE flavour, this takes less than two minutes for downloading
>> the packages, but about 5 minutes for unpacking them. This is done on a
>> reasonable fast i386 machine
On Friday 19 January 2007 02:19, Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the KDE flavour, this takes less than two minutes for downloading
> the packages, but about 5 minutes for unpacking them. This is done on a
> reasonable fast i386 machine (3.2ghz, 1gb ram, two 250gb barracudas in
> rai
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I'm not sure if the smaller size that LZMA allows is worth it if it then
> takes a lot longer to unpack files
Unfortunately, that is already the case today. I have a local mirror via
gigabit as I build multiple livecd images on a daily basis.
For the KDE flavour, this take
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 09:25:38AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > I'm not sure if the smaller size that LZMA allows is worth it if
> > > it then takes a lot longer to unpack files, or if it becomes
> > > impossible to do so due to memory requirements.
> >
> > I don't know on memory re
Hi,
> > I'm not sure if the smaller size that LZMA allows is worth it if it then
> > takes a lot longer to unpack files, or if it becomes impossible to do so
> > due to memory requirements.
>
> i don't know on memory requirements. but i didn't notice any speed drawbacks
> for my personal use.
L
> Does LZMA have any drawbacks? According to Wikipedia[1,2] indicates that
> it is slower than gzip, at perhaps around half the speed, but that it
> may require a lot of memory to compress, but reasonably little to
> decompress.
According to my check last year and a few weeks or months:
http://www
On ma, 2007-01-15 at 14:31 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 12:39:18PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > Does LZMA have any drawbacks?
>
> It is far less deployed as bzip2, so manually unpacking .deb packages on
> some random GNU/Linux or Unix rescue system is more likely to f
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 12:39:18PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Does LZMA have any drawbacks?
It is far less deployed as bzip2, so manually unpacking .deb packages on
some random GNU/Linux or Unix rescue system is more likely to fail.
Bzip2 is pretty ubiquitous these days, so comparing lzma num
On ma, 2007-01-15 at 09:34 +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> Since the day that dpkg officially supports lzma compressed packages, Gürkan
> runs
> a mirror of binary packages (i386, sid, main) which can be used easily. The
> general save of downloading is about 30 %. The scripts how it is done and
> t
Since the day that dpkg officially supports lzma compressed packages, Gürkan
runs
a mirror of binary packages (i386, sid, main) which can be used easily. The
general save of downloading is about 30 %. The scripts how it is done and
the pool is here: http://gnu.ethz.ch/debian-lzma/
Gürkan
--
To
18 matches
Mail list logo
