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 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 compression routines don't gain any benefit if they don't change the number of sectors needed to store the file. > > 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.) TimReceived on Tue Dec 07 2010 - 05:51:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:09 UTC