From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 2 16:07:03 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C16A1F8; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 16:07:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail0.glenbarber.us (mail0.glenbarber.us [IPv6:2607:fc50:1:2300:1001:1001:1001:face]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.glenbarber.us", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05013362; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 16:07:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from glenbarber.us (70.15.88.86.res-cmts.sewb.ptd.net [70.15.88.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: gjb) by mail0.glenbarber.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B172AB88D; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 16:06:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 mail0.glenbarber.us B172AB88D Authentication-Results: mail0.glenbarber.us; dkim=none reason="no signature"; dkim-adsp=none Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 12:06:50 -0400 From: Glen Barber To: Nikolai Lifanov Subject: Re: svn commit: r264027 - in head: release share/man/man7 Message-ID: <20140402160650.GH14379@glenbarber.us> References: <201404012241.s31MfRW6020684@svn.freebsd.org> <20140402154022.GA70867@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20140402155134.GG14379@glenbarber.us> <533C32F5.9050809@mail.lifanov.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="o71xDhNo7p97+qVi" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <533C32F5.9050809@mail.lifanov.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT amd64 X-SCUD-Definition: Sudden Completely Unexpected Dataloss X-SULE-Definition: Sudden Unexpected Learning Event User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Brooks Davis , src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:07:03 -0000 --o71xDhNo7p97+qVi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 11:55:33AM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote: > On 04/02/14 11:51, Glen Barber wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:40:22AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 10:41:27PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote: > >>> Author: gjb > >>> Date: Tue Apr 1 22:41:26 2014 > >>> New Revision: 264027 > >>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/264027 > >>> > >>> Log: > >>> Add a new release build variable, WITH_COMPRESSED_IMAGES. > >>> =20 > >>> When set to a non-empty value, the installation medium is > >>> compressed with gzip(1) as part of the 'install' target in > >>> the release/ directory. > >>> =20 > >>> With gzip(1) compression, downloadable image are reduced in > >>> size quite significantly. Build test against head@263927 > >>> shows the following: > >>> =20 > >>> bootonly.iso: 64% smaller > >>> disc1.iso: 44% smaller > >>> memstick.img: 47% smaller > >>> mini-memstick.img: 65% smaller > >>> dvd1.iso: untested > >>> =20 > >>> This option is off by default, I would eventually like to > >>> turn it on by default, and remove the '-k' flag to gzip(1) > >>> so only compressed images are published on FTP. > >> > >> I'd recommend testing xz compression as well. With UFS images of a fu= ll > >> world the savings vs gzip are significant (more than 30% IIRC, but it's > >> need more than a year since I checked so I'm a bit unsure of the exact > >> numbers). > >> > >=20 > > delphij also brought this up. > >=20 > > I have concerns with xz(1), since there was mention in IRC that Windows > > users may have problems decompressing xz-compressed images. So, gzip(1) > > is used because it seems to be the more commonly-supported archive > > mechanisms. > >=20 > > The benefit of xz(1) over gzip(1) was only 50M-ish. > >=20 > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 601M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 381M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.bz2 > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 392M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.gz > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 348M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.xz > >=20 > > Glen > >=20 >=20 > How about 7zip (Windows program, not file format)? What would a Windows > user use that can decompress gzip and not xz? It was a problem around > ~2007, but xz support is no longer rare or exotic. >=20 I don't know, to be honest. I have no Windows machines to test, so I can only go by what I am told. Glen --o71xDhNo7p97+qVi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTPDWaAAoJELls3eqvi17Q5OcQAJ29Xt4PIAgw3QNgrZUAm5WI jRxL9B7mpLbkD7OxsYoYIqGgxY2oOKuIjuqIog6GU4LZT3HuE1W/Blb2doqjVIg6 1sCwLQALOX3ypoEacy/nA5IMaoveV8ncp8L3YN4K+9/RcNLZZ6oWiXzaa1QD+jkT Co6Blb8OKMlmUk2HqC4R/lN03Tzqz3x3+k8jz3H3Wm/0LfmMb03/wrdw+5RpDngl ZiLnDe6FLINywYUZViY0seOx7fXSdu1hndUprmMbRZnKtk05u5/Rk93Eeg7MEe7f GYSJzyJBDDXubzE/UnQT3FVKSoO0I8b6CpK2GADh4XsppbPbVrENjPhr/Z0AHFvQ 8gtJCMOCI8n6eVH52Ml0rsNq+GGsPcH3M6pR9J9DQWsjX6vZRC3a9kEQULw/eYwi zk7nYQMbz3lDSxKh0yBylGvweYnaEIv/ZDNNQ1bKpIsHG4FLdflqMPqqlIZdvm4J OnUrlxv3oFNR23PMzcuDLZeu+dtjWkGVVgdCIPJvRa6FZtO+UgghJU65fn9iawq/ adWhAwC+rtYULuYzpTbipskiEqILuiiKWJxN2Ngfmhl4cHzRAbfo5aTYKy9aaKBy 3tX8DMO4GxN6LYvSMmcfKEnWm9PFWeepXpErNR4Vm87sxz0r0+5Zf8I565UyuwOr arikWoWE3p1FdZOsm5N/ =xLOR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --o71xDhNo7p97+qVi--