Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi all, > > I had this random idea that many of our distfiles are .tar.gz while more > efficient compression methods exist. So I did some testing for fun: > > We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others. > A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 - > roughly 30% more efficient! > A comparison run with 7zip gave me 590M files, so bzip2 seems to be > quite good. > > I don't think repackaging every .tar.gz as .tar.bz2 is a reasonable > option (breaks MD5 digests, we lose the fallback download from the > homepage), but maybe this motivates people to save bandwidth and migrate > their packaging to bzip2.
Patrick, did you benchmark CPU load? Often bzip2 takes 3x as long to uncompress a package than bzip. Often, the space savings doesn't justify the cost of how long it takes for the cpu to decompress the archive. -ryan
pgp4Pn7SbQl0c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
