[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: bsdcpio and bsdtar installed by default
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:10:16PM -0400, Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc. wrote:
> On 5-Jun-08, at 1:56 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> For gzip/libz based compression, I think the overhead of pipe is clearly
>> as large as the gain from running on different cores (e.g. sharing L2
> That may be a problem with pipes then, perhaps.
You have to copy all the data and deflate is quite efficient otherwise,
so the overhead of system calls is mostly eating the parallelism.
>> For my Core2 laptop (hw.ncpu=2):
>> bsdtar xf libX11-1.1.3.tar.bz2
>> 1.18s user 0.12s system 99% cpu 1.305 total
>> bsdtar --use-compress-program /usr/bin/bunzip2 -xf libX11-1.1.3.tar.bz2
>> 1.25s user 0.16s system 109% cpu 1.285 total
> Those numbers don't quite make sense to me. Something looks (a little bit)
> wrong. The results seem to indicate the combined CPU use exceeded that
> possible by one CPU alone. There also seems to be a tiny savings in wall
> clock time too. However the user time is higher than I would expect for
> the overhead of reading and writing through a pipe (from user-land alone).
Yeah, might be misaccounting on the shell builtin. Running the same test
% /usr/bin/time bsdtar --use-compress-program bunzip2 -xf libX11-1.1.3.tar.bz2
1.38 real 1.22 user 0.15 sys
% /usr/bin/time bsdtar xf libX11-1.1.3.tar.bz2
1.31 real 1.22 user 0.08 sys
% /usr/bin/time bsdtar xf libX11-1.1.3.tar
0.14 real 0.03 user 0.11 sys
% /usr/bin/time bunzip2 -c libX11-1.1.3.tar.bz2 > libX11-1.1.3.tar
1.20 real 1.16 user 0.04 sys
Essentially, the time is dominated by bzip2 and writing to disk directly
is the cheaper part.
Main Index |
Thread Index |