On 13/03/14 08:11, Allan McRae wrote:
On 06/03/14 09:25, Matthias Krüger wrote:
Side note: it might be even more advantageous to use bsdiff instead of xdelta3 comparing the /usr/bin/blender binaries of the above versions (12:2.69.c7ac0e-1 and 13:2.69.13290d-1) :
xdelta3 10.4M xdelta3 -9 9.9M bsdiff 4.7M
I took a look, and changing from xdelta3 to bsdiff would be very simple. It looks like it is a five minute patch...
But what I need is for someone to generate deltas (with and without -9 maybe) for a whole bunch of packages. Then generate diffs using bsdiff and compare the results. The comparison will need to include:
1) size of deltas/diffs 2) memory used when reconstructing package 3) time taken to reconstruct package.
Once we have that information, we can make an informed decision.
Allan
Hi, Allan and Matthias Related, one of the potentials we saw when originally researching performance was that I was using gzip --rsyncable in CentOS to compress files for delta'd backups (completely unrelated to repo management of course). The --rsyncable flag allows completely avoiding the decompress/recompress steps but is not as good at reducing the total disk/network usage. The --rsyncable flag is not included in the gzip package however. See https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=496539 Unfortunately if I do the testing you've mentioned from our mirror server, I'm not sure if the performance results would be relevant as our mirror server is now running OpenIndiana. :-/ -- __________ Brendan Hide http://swiftspirit.co.za/ http://www.webafrica.co.za/?AFF1E97