On 09/25/2014 02:18 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 09/02/2014 09:39 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >>> For -z9, it is as bad as ~670MiB to >>> compress, and ~65MiB to decompress. >> >> I'd say this really depends on what you do. For what I do (eg: OpenStack >> packages), I don't see how 65MB could be a problem. I do compress with >> -z9, and have no intention to change this, because it makes sense for >> these packages, where the bottleneck for large deployments will more be >> the network transfers than uncompressing on each individual nodes. > > OTOH, using -z9 on datasets smaller than the -z8 dictionary size *is* a > waste of memory
Exactly why should I care when there's all the chances in the world that my users will have plenty of RAM? These days, in a cloud deployment, a server with 64 GB of RAM is small, and can be considered from the old generation (such amount of RAM cost about 300 EUR w/o tax). 256 GB is quite common. And we're talking about a few dozens of MB for decompressing. There's an 1k order of magnitude difference here at least. So: I don't care what you call "a lot" of RAM: for my application, that's not a lot, that's negligible. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5423bf9c.40...@debian.org