On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Daniel Troeder <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 09/09/2010 07:24 PM, Matt Neimeyer wrote:
>> My generic question is: When I'm using a pipe line series of commands
>> do I use up more/less space than doing things in sequence?
>> For example, I have a development Gentoo VM that has a hard drive that
>> is too small... I wanted to move a database off of that onto another
>> machine but when I tried the following I filled my partition and 'evil
>> things' happened...
>> mysqldump blah...
>> gzip blah...
>> In this specific case I added another virtual drive, mounted that and
>> went on with life but I'm curious if I could have gotten away with the
>> pipe line instead. Will doing something like this still use "twice"
>> the space?
>> mysqldump | gzip > file.sql.gz
>> OR going back to my generic question if I pipe line like "type | sort
>> | unique > output" does that only use 1x or 3x the disk space?
>> Thanks in advance!
>> P.S. If the answer is "it depends" how do know what it depends on?
> Everyone already answered the disk space question. I want to add just
> this: It also saves you lots of i/o-bandwidth: only the compressed data
> gets written to disk. As i/o is the most common bottleneck, it is often
> an imperative to do as much as possible in a pipe. If you're lucky it
> can also mean, that multiple programs run at the same time, resulting in
> higher throughput. Lucky is, when consumer and producer (right and left
> of pipe) can work simultaneously because the buffer is big enough. You
> can see this every time you (un)pack a tar.gz.
And if you have a huge amount of data where compression causes CPU to
become the bottleneck you can use something like pbzip2 which uses all
CPUs/cores in parallel to speed up [de]compression.