Re: em blues

2006-10-11 Thread soralx
> On 10/11/06, Danny Braniss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) > > dual cpu. > > > > running iperf -c (receiving): > > > > freebsd-4.100.0-10.0 sec936 MBytes785 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec413 MBytes3

Re: em blues

2006-10-11 Thread Jack Vogel
On 10/11/06, Danny Braniss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) dual cpu. running iperf -c (receiving): freebsd-4.100.0-10.0 sec936 MBytes785 Mbits/sec freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec413 MBytes346 Mbits/sec freebsd.6.1

Re: Keyboard system and Giant

2006-10-11 Thread Nicolas Souchu
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 08:53:33PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello; > > FWIW, anyone planning to work in the keyboard or mouse systems is warned to > look at the KII portions of KGI4BSD first. The main reference is the P4 > repository but there is some documentation here: > http://wik

Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!?

2006-10-11 Thread Oliver Fromme
Vasil Dimov wrote: > You (wrongly) assumed that two processed will do slower than a single > one. That assumption should be true, in general, at least on a single-CPU machine. With two processes, there is additional overhead for data copying through the pipe. > It's exactly the opposite. Whi

em blues

2006-10-11 Thread Danny Braniss
the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) dual cpu. running iperf -c (receiving): freebsd-4.100.0-10.0 sec936 MBytes785 Mbits/sec freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec413 MBytes346 Mbits/sec freebsd.6.1 0.0-10.0 sec366 MBytes307 Mbits/sec freebsd-6.

Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!?

2006-10-11 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:34:10AM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > If gzip uses its own code instead of libz, that would > explain the results of my test, of course. So it seems > that gzip is 30% faster than libz ... quite significant, > I think. No, it isn't. I did benchmarks before importing th

Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!?

2006-10-11 Thread Oliver Fromme
Mike Meyer wrote: > Not necessarily a known problem, but not a surprise. I'm not sure > about the size issue - it's not clear what compression level it's > running at. The real time difference is expected. tar uses libarchive, > which does the compression in the process. So while piping tar's

Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!?

2006-10-11 Thread Vasil Dimov
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 07:27:53PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Hi, > > While doing some performance tuning of a backup script > I noticed that the -z option of our (bsd)tar behaves in > a very suboptimal way. It's not only a lot slower than > using gzip separately, it also compresses worse. >

Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!?

2006-10-11 Thread Dale DuRose
Hi I've tested on 6.1-RELEASE-p5 box these are my results. I'm wondering why the dragonfly results are so different. What have you guys done? Cheers Dale Run 1 - %time sh -c "bsdtar -czf test.tgz /usr/src/contrib/gcc"