Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932161AbWEUW31 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 May 2006 18:29:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751475AbWEUW31 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 May 2006 18:29:27 -0400 Received: from mcr-smtp-001.bulldogdsl.com ([212.158.248.7]:58117 "EHLO mcr-smtp-001.bulldogdsl.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751474AbWEUW30 (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 May 2006 18:29:26 -0400 X-Spam-Abuse: Please report all spam/abuse matters to abuse@bulldogdsl.com From: Alistair John Strachan To: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Source Compression Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 23:29:37 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Chris Wedgwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200605212257.10934.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> <4470E80D.3000902@vilain.net> In-Reply-To: <4470E80D.3000902@vilain.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200605212329.37719.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2116 Lines: 50 On Sunday 21 May 2006 23:22, Sam Vilain wrote: [snip] > Interesting. Googling a bit; from http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks: > > In terms of speed, gzip is the winner again. lzma comes right behind it > two to three times slower than gzip. bzip2 is a lot slower taking > usually two to six times more time than lzma, that is, four to twelve > times more than gzip. One interesting thing is that gzip and lzma > decompress the faster the smaller the compressed size is, while bzip2 > gets slower when the compression ratio gets better. > [...] > neither bzip2 nor lzma can compete with gzip in terms of speed or memory > usage. > > Also this: > > "lzmash -8" and "lzmash -9" require lots of memory and are practical > only on newer computers; the files compressed with them are probably a > pain to decompress on systems with less than 32 MB or 64 MB of memory. > [...] > The files compressed with the default "lzmash -7" can still be > decompressed, even on machines with only 16 MB of RAM Interesting info. I agree that LZMA is not a replacement for gzip/zlib, because gzip is extremely size/time efficient. However, as noted in another thread, it is almost certainly a viable replacement for bzip2, since people that use bzip2 are generally interested in a size optimisation, not a compression speed one, and even if compression speed is relevant, LZMA's options scale to be approximately as good (or as bad??) as bzip2. This is all fairly academic. I think the issue still boils down to widespread adoption; bzip2 took a while to get off the ground, people don't like messing with new formats, and distributors have to pick up the tools. I think kernel.org switching formats would be one of the last things that could, or indeed should, happen. -- Cheers, Alistair. Third year Computer Science undergraduate. 1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/