[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: dist-xz compression level
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: dist-xz compression level |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:42:16 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-10-28) |
Hello Andreas,
* Andreas Jellinghaus wrote on Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 09:37:13PM CEST:
> isn't xz extremely sloooow with -9?
> maybe it wasn't a bug, bit intentionally not used,
> as that huge extra amount of time doesn't result in
> that many bytes saved.
Well, does somebody have numbers (memory, time, compression) as to what
is reasonable?
> is the compression level configureable somehow?
Not ATM, but if necessary we could change that.
Thanks,
Ralf
- dist-xz compression level, Pavel Sanda, 2010/04/07
- Re: dist-xz compression level, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/04/11
- Re: dist-xz compression level, Andreas Jellinghaus, 2010/04/11
- Re: dist-xz compression level, Pavel Sanda, 2010/04/11
- Re: dist-xz compression level, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/04/11
- Re: dist-xz compression level, Pavel Sanda, 2010/04/11
- Re: dist-xz compression level, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/04/11
- Re: dist-xz compression level, Pavel Sanda, 2010/04/11
- Re: dist-xz compression level, Reuben Thomas, 2010/04/12
- Re: dist-xz compression level, Andreas Jellinghaus, 2010/04/12
Re: dist-xz compression level, Jim Meyering, 2010/04/12