Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:50:44 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Alex Kozlov <spam@rm-rf.kiev.ua>, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: trying to use xz on manuals. Message-ID: <1639A255-7C84-4D81-A97E-AEB624E68A70@kientzle.com> In-Reply-To: <9132C068-A9C7-41EE-AA98-714385441EE3@mac.com> References: <20101206171358.GA17125@ravenloft.kiev.ua> <9132C068-A9C7-41EE-AA98-714385441EE3@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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%:-(. >>=20 >> Some time ago I do similar tests. Changing compression for base man's = to bz2 or xz doesn't make much sense. >=20 > Oh, agreed. The issue with small files is that they will always take = up at least one sector [*]; different compression routines don't gain = any benefit if they don't change the number of sectors needed to store = the file. >=20 > More than half of the manpages end up as 1K .gz catman files as it is; = ~90% are 2K or smaller. 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.) Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1639A255-7C84-4D81-A97E-AEB624E68A70>