On 13/03/14 08:11, Allan McRae wrote:
On 06/03/14 09:25, Matthias Krüger wrote:
Side note: it might be even more advantageous to use bsdiff instead of
xdelta3
comparing the /usr/bin/blender binaries of the above versions
(12:2.69.c7ac0e-1 and 13:2.69.13290d-1) :
xdelta3 10.4M
xdelta3 -9 9.9M
bsdiff 4.7M
I took a look, and changing from xdelta3 to bsdiff would be very simple.
It looks like it is a five minute patch...
But what I need is for someone to generate deltas (with and without -9
maybe) for a whole bunch of packages. Then generate diffs using bsdiff
and compare the results. The comparison will need to include:
1) size of deltas/diffs
2) memory used when reconstructing package
3) time taken to reconstruct package.
Once we have that information, we can make an informed decision.
Allan
Hi, Allan and Matthias
Related, one of the potentials we saw when originally researching
performance was that I was using gzip --rsyncable in CentOS to compress
files for delta'd backups (completely unrelated to repo management of
course). The --rsyncable flag allows completely avoiding the
decompress/recompress steps but is not as good at reducing the total
disk/network usage. The --rsyncable flag is not included in the gzip
package however. See https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=496539
Unfortunately if I do the testing you've mentioned from our mirror
server, I'm not sure if the performance results would be relevant as our
mirror server is now running OpenIndiana. :-/
--
__________
Brendan Hide
http://swiftspirit.co.za/
http://www.webafrica.co.za/?AFF1E97
