From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id SHG3IKIIFGADewAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:07:46 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id +G6aHKIIFGAAagAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:07:46 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CC7A9404E8 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:07:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:45594 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l5TV1-00085e-E0 for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 08:07:43 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56180) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l5TUO-00085H-GT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 08:07:04 -0500 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:57641) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l5TUK-0001Ol-1F for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 08:07:04 -0500 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58F0C2400FF for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:06:56 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1611925616; bh=Vm8p0TvpKwFVnW3t9rNr7woysYtsPJN7vPQlqq2cIp8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=OAJ457tVaG0HXNchk/AcPtM14fGmfp/FrAxRB+Mw/JVqiZuG0dxQTqr47YI3TQsDb n+383ZspXuUFLUD2DrvdoSWmfvYC5n0XHvOnVPGzWejAA5797y4HC6s7rJcqDGVj+e 1mM6qU1fYPV7jTIX58Lf/L7l+AifUPnQFSfm96J6JueTxWHrH3MrdtZqW/NaNNXmIc psy76PnGcrO6SHUhQigycP5KysVxlRosJFLNGHmZtp6YlcwwabZsCUo+NfU00JeY3O ld49+chmVw7ndNjU2itQnZ+BJ8dYl0aYr6NKssf/m0OzgyyztSz53CUC02q2Pa/keA 7IIg6D2xnrkEA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4DRyKW2Kyzz9rxX; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:06:55 +0100 (CET) References: <87im94qbby.fsf@gnu.org> <94405d66-b13c-e6e6-e8d5-df23b93e5d97@web.de> <87im92voqw.fsf@dismail.de> <87ft3d2fge.fsf@yamatai> <87bldr191v.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7ni62nt.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87bld9j651.fsf@gnu.org> <87eei4rs8x.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <874kj0x9yv.fsf@yamatai> <87mtwsarfg.fsf@guixSD.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87lfccrley.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.14; emacs 27.1 From: Guillaume Le Vaillant To: Pierre Neidhardt Subject: Re: When substitute download + decompression is CPU-bound In-reply-to: <87lfccrley.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:06:52 +0100 Message-ID: <871re3yjrn.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=glv@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, =?utf-8?Q?Nicol=C3=B2?= Balzarotti Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.85 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=posteo.net header.s=2017 header.b=OAJ457tV; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (strict)" header.from=posteo.net (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 7CC7A9404E8 X-Spam-Score: -2.85 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: xclMzeCTEzYt --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nicol=C3=B2 Balzarotti skribis: > Which hardware did you use? Since you are fixing the download speed, > those results really depend on cpu speed. I ran these tests on a laptop from 2012 with an Intel i7-3630QM CPU. When the CPU speed increases, the download speed limit below which Lzip is the best choice also increases. For example, in my test Lzip is the best choice if the download speed is below 3.5 MB/s. With a CPU running twice faster, Lzip is the best choice when the download speed is below 6.5 MB/s. Pierre Neidhardt skribis: > Nicol=C3=B2 Balzarotti writes: > >>> As Gzip is never the best choice, it would make sense to drop it, even >>> if we have to wait a little until everyone has updated their Guix daemon >> >> My hypothesis is that this won't be the case on something slow like the >> raspberry pi 1. > > What wouldn't be the case? If you mean that "gzip is never the best > choice", wouldn't Zstd outperform gzip on the Raspberry Pi 1 too? I saw a compression benchmark somewhere on the internet (I can't remember where right now) where Gzip decompression on a Raspberry Pi 2 was around 40 MB/s, and Zstd decompression was around 50 MB/s. I guess Zstd will also be faster than Gzip on a Raspberry Pi 1. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iIUEAREKAC0WIQTLxZxm7Ce5cXlAaz5r6CCK3yH+PwUCYBQIbA8cZ2x2QHBvc3Rl by5uZXQACgkQa+ggit8h/j8ZWAD9GoemJTKk4amBuSUgjLLJYD3tmkcoMrfgQm1S Dkj9cn4A/jQsKAEfuH+VSeJuWXwhshC9INRxnos5IwXStMiJX8g5 =tYkR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--