On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 12:34:58AM +0300, Narvi wrote: > > On Wed, 7 May 2003, Erik Trulsson wrote: > > > > which is a quite significant difference. I picked the file because of size > > > and not change of compression ratio, or check all the files (just in case > > > there are any benchmarking paranoids around). On the speed side, the speed > > > of bunzip2 only matters if the speed difference between it and gunzip were > > > user perceptible on even not really up to date at all hardware, which is > > > not the case AFAICT. > > > > Here you are wrong. On old hardware the difference in speed (and the > > difference in memory needed) between bunzip2 and gunzip is quite > > noticable. > > > > So... how old hardware are you talking about? What I consider old is essentially stuff that is more than 10 years old. 5 year old machines are not old in my opinion. (Yes, I know that many people consider 5 year old computers to be old and obsolete. I consider such people to be quite ridiculous.) A couple of datapoints, using your example of gcc.info compressed with both gzip and bzip2: On my main machine, a Pentium 166/MMX, which I don't consider to be particularly old, and definitely not even close to obsolete, gunzip took less than one second to uncompress the file while bunzip2 took a bit over 5 seconds. I would call that difference quite noticable. On my other FreeBSD machine, a 386sx/33, which I will admit is getting a bit old but not yet obsolete, gunzip required 7 seconds to uncompress the .gz file while bunzip2 required over a minute to uncompress the .bz2 file. Very noticable difference. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013_at_student.uu.seReceived on Wed May 07 2003 - 13:24:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:06 UTC