On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Alex Kozlov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:50:44PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>> It might make sense if XZ decompression were significantly
>> faster than GZip decompression. (Especially since man pages
>> are decompressed much more often than they are compressed.
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:50:44 -0800
Tim Kientzle wrote:
> >> Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression for base man's to
> >> bz2 or xz doesn't make much sense.
> > Oh, agreed. The issue with small files is that they will always take up at
> > least one sector [*]; different compress
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:50:44PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Alex Kozlov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:03:50AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
.xz smaller than .gz, but effective is about 96.2%:-(.
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Alex Kozlov wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:03:50AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
>>> .xz smaller than .gz, but effective is about 96.2%:-(.
>>
>> Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression fo
On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Alex Kozlov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:03:50AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
>> .xz smaller than .gz, but effective is about 96.2%:-(.
>
> Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression for base man's to bz2
> or xz doesn't make much sense.
O
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:03:50AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
> .xz smaller than .gz, but effective is about 96.2%:-(.
Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression for base man's
to bz2 or xz doesn't make much sense.
--
Adios
RELENG_8 2010-04-26:
4,0M/tmp/mangzxz.hm0P7
Hi.
I tested like following:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
--- share/mk/bsd.own.mk.orig2010-10-06 12:22:05.747697000 +0900
+++ share/mk/bsd.own.mk 2010-12-06 23:40:59.058632584 +0900
@@ -169,8 +169,8 @@
STRIP?=-s
