From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: pack operation is thrashing my server Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:18:44 +0200 Message-ID: <48C38E64.5010204@op5.se> References: <7vk5dorclv.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <9e4733910809061950g6d9d2cf1g708f8faf0c06108@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jon Smirl , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 07 10:20:40 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KcFVC-0003my-F1 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:20:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752598AbYIGITD (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 04:19:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752596AbYIGITB (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 04:19:01 -0400 Received: from mail.op5.se ([193.201.96.20]:37888 "EHLO mail.op5.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752532AbYIGIS7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 04:18:59 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CA71B8007E; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:24:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.op5.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.op5.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x1RW6jUe8HSO; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:24:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from clix.int.op5.se (unknown [172.27.78.10]) by mail.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A271B800A7; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:24:49 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Take a look at that web page you quote, and then sort things by > decompression speed. THAT is the issue. > > And no, LZO isn't even on that list. I haven't tested it, but looking at > the code, I do think LZO can be fast exactly because it seems to be > byte-based rather than bit-based, so I'd not be surprised if the claims > for its uncompression speed are true. > Some lzo vs zlib benchmark figures (for git) are available here: http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/git/0504/1700.html LZO also ships their "minilzo.[ch]" fileset for easy inclusion in other projects. I've used it a couple of times with decent results. As for testing, both have been thoroughly vetted by NASA. LZO is used for communication with satellites and that spacestation thing they had some time ago, while zlib is being used for sending data back from Hubble and other large data gatherers. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231