Kristian Erik Hermansen wrote the following on 17.12.2007 23:56 > We are talking about a 10x increase in the time it takes to create > DEBs if moving from gz -> lzma. Is this acceptable?
deb creation aka compression shouldn´t bother us as much as installing aka extraction. buildds should have enough power for that (given ubuntu delivers only for "fast" architectures) > Also, it is more > than doubling the work placed on the installer's CPU. also note the package size went down from gz: 39084 real 0m14.278s to 7z: 27358 real 2m23.783s which means ~30% less download time during a security update, which in turn means ~30% less cost for that update. currently i am on a 384kbit/s line. comparation of a whole install (download time + extract time): download time gz (39084/384)= 101.78s + 14.278s = 116.06s download time 7z (27358/384)= 71.24s + 143.783s = 215.02s So i think it depends on the goal we would like to reach: 1. less package size = less time spending downloading 2. cpu cycles = compress/extract time (both buildd and user pc) depending on who you ask i think the answer will be quite different. Someone on a modem line will much appreciate the 30% less time downloading (7z), someone with a fat DSL cable and weak cpu will tend to prefer gz. </snip> -- Thilo key: 0x4A411E09 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
