Re: [Evolution-hackers] compression for folders?

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

you are forgetting the fact that folders are generally not read-only,
and so in order to write any new data to the gzip file, you'd have to
rewrite it from scratch which negates any speed improvements you could
possibly claim.

also, as a curiosity, I actually tested this theory and it doesn't hold
true. reading/inflating a gzip file off disk is no faster than reading
the non-compressed file off disk, *and* inflating the gzip file pegs the
cpu so if the app was doing other things then it would negatively impact
performance of those other operations.

Jeff

On Sat, 2004-05-08 at 13:52, Enver ALTIN wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 09:34 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> > > > BTW, you guys misread my statement.  I have 3gb of mbox files that are
> > > > compressed already with 'bzip2 -9' ..
> > Naah i didn't misread it, i just forgot to mention it in my reply.
> > Still, disk is cheap.  Really really cheap. 
> 
> Hey, Houston, we have _that_ problem :) Disks are cheap but also slow.
> zlib removes a bunch of I/O overhead and puts it on CPU. Since CPU is
> also cheap enough and idle most of the time, compression is still a Good
> Thing (TM).
> 
> Cheers,