On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 17:10, Joel Rosdahl wrote: > Lars Gustäbel's compression patch (which will be incorporated in ccache 3.0) > enables compression by default, and if you don't want compression you have to > set CCACHE_NOCOMPRESS. I'm still a bit undecided about whether defaulting to > compression is a good idea, though. Maybe we should be more conservative here > and require CCACHE_COMPRESS to be set to enable compression instead? (Note > that > the question only is about the default behaviour when storing files in the > cache -- ccache will still be able to read compressed and uncompressed files > from the cache regardless of the CCACHE_(NO)COMPRESS setting.) > > The main argument I see for making compression opt-in is that hard-linking > doesn't work for compressed files (where "doesn't work" means that ccache will > fall back to copying), so if you would like to try out hard-linking, you must > set both CCACHE_NOCOMPRESS and CCACHE_HARDLINK, and also build up the cache > again. Or, if you currently have enabled hard-linking with ccache 2.4, you > need > to take the explicit action of disabling compression after an upgrade to get > the previous behaviour. > > Another argument is maybe that disk space is cheap nowadays, and most people > probably want to optimize for speed instead of disk space. On the other hand, > the overhead of using compression is very small. In fact, I am unable to > consistently measure any performance impact whatsoever. (Lars Gustäbel's own > measurements can be found at <http://gustaebel.de/lars/ccache/>.) And, by > compressing the cached files, more files will fit in the cache and also in the > OS disk cache. > > Does anyone have an opinion to share about this?
make the default a ./configure option that defaults to off -mike _______________________________________________ ccache mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache