Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] [regression] Are tests not running?
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-01 10:17:46

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>

> On 11/30/2016 08:05 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> >
> > OK. Some cleanup of really old files. And removed the incoming results
> so
> > that they get redone on the next uploads. For curiosity.. And so that
> > people get an idea of resources.. The results for develop+master take up
> > 14G *compressed*.
> If you're measuring the size of the zip file,
> it isn't compressed. (unless someone changed
> the implementation.) The reason for this is
> that I found that rsync handles the uncompressed
> zip much better. (zip compresses files individually
> and there are a lot of very similar small files).

Re rsync.. Really? When I first implemented this it seemed rsync did fine
with the compressed files. It correctly sent small chunks over on the spots
that changed only. Now the chunks contained more than just the small file
segments.. But it seemed that it was still sending over a small overall

What I do remember is that using uncompressed made the server use less CPU.
At one point it became a problem though. As the server was bogged down
other operations the server was doing. So I can understand wanting to
reduce that.

At the time, the archive was less than 1 GB, so
> I prioritized network usage over disk space.
> To change this you should be able to replace
> the nocompression_sink with deflate_sink in html_writer.

Perhaps we can use minimal compression, so that decompression is still low
CPU, but we still see some disk space savings? After all it's all text
which compressed well even at low compression levels.

-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams -
-- rrivera/ (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at