Re: trying to use xz on manuals.

On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:50:44PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> 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.)
It's not.

Bigest man from the base, FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT Sat Oct 23 amd64,
CPU: Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU T4400 _at_ 2.20GHz (2194.55-MHz K8-class CPU),
average of 3 tries:

$ls -l CC.1*
-rw-r--r--  1 kozlov  kozlov  584775 Dec  7 09:14 CC.1
-rw-r--r--  1 kozlov  kozlov  161663 Dec  7 09:14 CC.1.gz
-rw-r--r--  1 kozlov  kozlov  131580 Dec  7 09:13 CC.1.xz
$cat CC.1.?z >/dev/null
$time xzcat CC.1.xz >/dev/null

real    0m0.032s
user    0m0.028s
sys     0m0.000s
$time gzcat CC.1.gz >/dev/null

real    0m0.012s
user    0m0.008s
sys     0m0.000s


--
Adios