On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:50:44PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Alex Kozlov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:03:50AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
.xz smaller than .gz, but effective is about 96.2%:-(.
Some
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:50:44 -0800
Tim Kientzle t...@kientzle.com wrote:
Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression for base man's to
bz2 or xz doesn't make much sense.
Oh, agreed. The issue with small files is that they will always take up at
least one sector [*]; different
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Alex Kozlov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:50:44PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
It might make sense if XZ decompression were significantly
faster than GZip decompression. (Especially since man pages
are decompressed much more often than they are compressed.)
Hi.
I tested like following:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
--- share/mk/bsd.own.mk.orig2010-10-06 12:22:05.747697000 +0900
+++ share/mk/bsd.own.mk 2010-12-06 23:40:59.058632584 +0900
@@ -169,8 +169,8 @@
STRIP?=-s
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:03:50AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
.xz smaller than .gz, but effective is about 96.2%:-(.
Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression for base man's
to bz2 or xz doesn't make much sense.
--
Adios
RELENG_8 2010-04-26:
4,0M
On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Alex Kozlov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:03:50AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
.xz smaller than .gz, but effective is about 96.2%:-(.
Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression for base man's to bz2
or xz doesn't make much sense.
Oh,
On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Alex Kozlov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:03:50AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
.xz smaller than .gz, but effective is about 96.2%:-(.
Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression for base
