--- Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (ii) the shared version is slower (on platforms like
> x86 which lack an
> adequate number of registers). This doesn't seem
> compelling to me - if
> speed was that important, we'd still be using
> gcc-2.95.3.
>
> For decompressing, the difference is not
> significant. On my duron
> (1GHz, but PC100 memory, and a bit underpowered now)
> I used
> both versions of bzip2 with -dc to take
> gcc-4.0.2.tar.bz2 (on an nfs
> mount) and write it to a local file. That box is
> running an LFS-6.1
> toolchain. Three runs of each, 58 seconds using
> bzip2, 58 to 61 seconds
> with the shared version (variation < 4%).
>
> If you compress a big dataset, then yes, the
> differences are more
> significant. Using a 186M tarball from a partial
> system build, with a
> sync before each test and two runs of each, user
> time varied from 3m32
> (non-shared) to 3m52 (shared) which is about 9.5%
> slower.
>
> So, if you reguarly compress large files with
> bzip2 on x86, you might
> want to consider using the non-shared version to use
> a bit less time.
> For most people, and for people using fast
> processors with fast memory,
> it probably isn't worth using the non-shared version
> of bzip2.
After your remarks, I've done another test on my new
64 bits system. This time, I've quite exactly the same
time for compressing and decompressing a 600Mo archive
(OOo, for the example) with the shared and the
partially-static version, with options -9 (maximum
compression).
So ok, there's no more interest in the version the
developper advised.
Thanks
G. Moko
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
