Updated Clang static analysis results / Valgrind update

Vincas Miliūnas vincas.miliunas at gmail.com
Sun Jul 3 09:17:02 CDT 2011

On 07/03/2011 04:33 PM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
> 2011/7/3 Vincas Miliūnas <vincas.miliunas at gmail.com>:
>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 04:15, Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com <http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel>> wrote:
>>>> / Web space usage was getting a bit high, so I've uploaded a tarball to
>>> />/ a file download service:
>>> />/ http://www.sendspace.com/file/5hot36
>>> />/
>>> />/ austin at aw21 <http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-devel> ~ $ sha1sum scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2
>>> />/ ac3cb3920ef97641fff1f5376f8136cef01f15bf  scan-build-2011-07-02.tar.bz2
>>> /
>>> FWIW, you could use xz instead of bzip2 to further reduce the download
>>> size (54 MiB)
>>> I got the size down to 46 MiB using default settings, and 25 MiB using
>>> max compression (xz -9)
>>> Frédéric
>> I have heard about he xz compressor, so I was interested on how 7zip and xz perform maxed-out:
>> 7z a -t7z -m0=lzma -mx=9 -mfb=255 -md=256m -ms=on scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z scan-build-2011-07-02-1
>> 11.87MiB - 12445530 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.7z
>> xz -zkc -Fxz -9e -M5GB --lzma2='dict=256Mi,nice=273,mf=bt4' scan-build-2011-07-02-1.tar > scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz
>> 12.14MiB - 12726004 scan-build-2011-07-02-1.xz
>> I didn't measure time, but it wasn't very long; xz took longer, because it doesn't support multithreading. Both required 3.5GB of memory at the peek.
> Well I didn't use all the xz options TBH... I only have 4 GiB of RAM, so...
> With "xz -9" it used like 600 MiB memory.
> Don't know about 7z, but xz manpage says it requires 5-20% RAM for
> decompression compared to compression, so it maybe a bit (too) high
> with your options for certain people.
> I once did a (quick) comparison between rzip/lrzip (which I think is
> in the same family as 7z) and xz, and had comparable results (give ot
> take 1% or 2), but xz was WAY quicker (something like 7-8x).
> xz was about a quick (or quicker) than bzip2 with better compression
> ratios/less memory usage, so it seemed a good compromise
> You probably have a monster machine if it didn't take very long for
> you though ;)
> Frédéric
No, I have an old E8400 w/ 8GiB of RAM.

I reran the 7z compression with time measurement. Decompression of the
previous 7z archive took ~3 seconds to a ram drive.

Looking at the exact numbers, I guess I overestimated :), it did take a
considerable amount of time and multithreading isn't very impressive:
real    10m39.469s
user    12m14.888s
sys    0m3.839s

But I agree, from what I have seen, xz is certainly superior to bzip2.

More information about the wine-devel mailing list