Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 06 March 2012 04:57:27 Jim Meyering wrote: >> Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz: >> - xz decompresses more quickly > > is that true ? i thought last i looked, they were close, but gzip was > consistently slightly faster. maybe if the bottleneck is more I/O than > CPU/memory, xz would win ? Hi Mike, Even back when the program was named lzma, it was always much more efficient at decompressing than *bzip2*: (this is on a tmpfs file system) $ du -sh gcc-* 69M gcc-4.6.3.tar.bz2 90M gcc-4.6.3.tar.gz 52M gcc-4.6.3.tar.xz Here xz decompression speed is about triple than bzip2: $ env time xz -dc gcc-4.6.3.tar.xz > /dev/null 3.76user 0.04system 0:03.82elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 66576maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+850minor)pagefaults 0swaps $ env time bzip2 -dc gcc-4.6.3.tar.bz2.orig > /dev/null 12.11user 0.04system 0:12.21elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 4152maxresident)k 88inputs+0outputs (0major+573minor)pagefaults 0swaps However, you're right that gzip decompresses faster than xz: $ env time gzip -dc gcc-4.6.3.tar.gz > /dev/null 2.31user 0.03system 0:02.35elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 772maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+235minor)pagefaults 0swaps Thanks for the correction. Jim _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
