On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 04:15, Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel> wrote:
/ Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to
/>/ a file download service: />/ http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 />/ />/ austin at aw21 http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 />/ ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 / FWIW, you could use xz instead of bzip2 to further reduce the download size (54 MiB) I got the size down to 46 MiB using default settings, and 25 MiB using max compression (xz -9)
Frédéric
I have heard about he xz compressor, so I was interested on how 7zip and xz perform maxed-out:
7z a -t7z -m0=lzma -mx=9 -mfb=255 -md=256m -ms=on scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z scan-build-2011-07-02-1 11.87MiB - 12445530 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z
xz -zkc -Fxz -9e -M5GB --lzma2='dict=256Mi,nice=273,mf=bt4' scan-build-2011-07-02-1.tar > scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz 12.14MiB - 12726004 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz
I didn't measure time, but it wasn't very long; xz took longer, because it doesn't support multithreading. Both required 3.5GB of memory at the peek.
2011/7/3 Vincas Miliūnas vincas.miliunas@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 04:15, Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel> wrote:
/ Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to
/>/ a file download service: />/ http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 />/ />/ austin at aw21 http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 />/ ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 / FWIW, you could use xz instead of bzip2 to further reduce the download size (54 MiB) I got the size down to 46 MiB using default settings, and 25 MiB using max compression (xz -9)
Frédéric
I have heard about he xz compressor, so I was interested on how 7zip and xz perform maxed-out:
7z a -t7z -m0=lzma -mx=9 -mfb=255 -md=256m -ms=on scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z scan-build-2011-07-02-1 11.87MiB - 12445530 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z
xz -zkc -Fxz -9e -M5GB --lzma2='dict=256Mi,nice=273,mf=bt4' scan-build-2011-07-02-1.tar > scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz 12.14MiB - 12726004 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz
I didn't measure time, but it wasn't very long; xz took longer, because it doesn't support multithreading. Both required 3.5GB of memory at the peek.
Well I didn't use all the xz options TBH... I only have 4 GiB of RAM, so... With "xz -9" it used like 600 MiB memory.
Don't know about 7z, but xz manpage says it requires 5-20% RAM for decompression compared to compression, so it maybe a bit (too) high with your options for certain people.
I once did a (quick) comparison between rzip/lrzip (which I think is in the same family as 7z) and xz, and had comparable results (give ot take 1% or 2), but xz was WAY quicker (something like 7-8x). xz was about a quick (or quicker) than bzip2 with better compression ratios/less memory usage, so it seemed a good compromise
You probably have a monster machine if it didn't take very long for you though ;)
Frédéric
On 07/03/2011 04:33 PM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
2011/7/3 Vincas Miliūnas vincas.miliunas@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 04:15, Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel> wrote:
/ Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to
/>/ a file download service: />/ http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36 />/ />/ austin at aw21 http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 />/ ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2 / FWIW, you could use xz instead of bzip2 to further reduce the download size (54 MiB) I got the size down to 46 MiB using default settings, and 25 MiB using max compression (xz -9)
Frédéric
I have heard about he xz compressor, so I was interested on how 7zip and xz perform maxed-out:
7z a -t7z -m0=lzma -mx=9 -mfb=255 -md=256m -ms=on scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z scan-build-2011-07-02-1 11.87MiB - 12445530 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z
xz -zkc -Fxz -9e -M5GB --lzma2='dict=256Mi,nice=273,mf=bt4' scan-build-2011-07-02-1.tar > scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz 12.14MiB - 12726004 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz
I didn't measure time, but it wasn't very long; xz took longer, because it doesn't support multithreading. Both required 3.5GB of memory at the peek.
Well I didn't use all the xz options TBH... I only have 4 GiB of RAM, so... With "xz -9" it used like 600 MiB memory.
Don't know about 7z, but xz manpage says it requires 5-20% RAM for decompression compared to compression, so it maybe a bit (too) high with your options for certain people.
I once did a (quick) comparison between rzip/lrzip (which I think is in the same family as 7z) and xz, and had comparable results (give ot take 1% or 2), but xz was WAY quicker (something like 7-8x). xz was about a quick (or quicker) than bzip2 with better compression ratios/less memory usage, so it seemed a good compromise
You probably have a monster machine if it didn't take very long for you though ;)
Frédéric
No, I have an old E8400 w/ 8GiB of RAM.
I reran the 7z compression with time measurement. Decompression of the previous 7z archive took ~3 seconds to a ram drive.
Looking at the exact numbers, I guess I overestimated :), it did take a considerable amount of time and multithreading isn't very impressive: real 10m39.469s user 12m14.888s sys 0m3.839s
But I agree, from what I have seen, xz is certainly superior to bzip2.
-
Frédéric Delanoy -
Vincas Miliūnas