On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Laszlo KREKACS<laszlo.krekacs.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > Need a serious benchmark here, if the extra overhead is true or not.
Ok, I have written the python implementation of the file archive maker. I need to finish (ie. write the unpacking part) of it. I compiled few benchmarks... I compressed the whole OSM maps tiles on my laptop (I repeated it 10 times): l...@buldergep:~/Maps/OSM$ echo -e "\noutput.kiss"; time python ../../Asztal/down/openmoko/paroli/data/kiss/kiss.py >> ../report.txt;mv output.kiss ..; echo -e "\noutput.tar"; time tar -cf ../output.tar .; echo -e "\noutput.zip"; time zip -0 -r output * >> ../report.txt; mv output.zip ..; echo -e "\noutput_comp.zip"; time zip -r output_comp * >> ../report.txt; mv output_comp.zip ..; rm ../output*; rm ../report.txt output.kiss real 0m4.447s user 0m2.748s sys 0m1.520s output.tar real 0m4.039s user 0m0.236s sys 0m1.188s output.zip real 0m5.556s user 0m1.276s sys 0m2.632s output_comp.zip real 0m12.438s user 0m8.437s sys 0m2.620s So the speed is about the same as in .tar file case. And it beats the zip. File sizes: -rw-r--r-- 1 lol lol 109M 2009-07-02 19:11 output_comp.zip -rw-r--r-- 1 lol lol 125M 2009-07-02 19:11 output.kiss -rw-r--r-- 1 lol lol 156M 2009-07-02 19:11 output.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 lol lol 113M 2009-07-02 19:11 output.zip -rw-r--r-- 1 lol lol 93M 2009-07-02 19:11 output.kiss.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 lol lol 94M 2009-07-02 19:11 output.tar.bz2 Total size of invidual files: l...@buldergep:~/Maps/OSM$ du -hs . 290M . Pretty strange, it reserves half the size .... I think this file format worth the effort. Best regards, Laszlo _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community