Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:52:44 -0500 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: Nikolai Lifanov <lifanov@mail.lifanov.com>, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r264027 - in head: release share/man/man7 Message-ID: <434d33e39cfb20eec115bb6aac30817d@shatow.net> In-Reply-To: <533C3992.9030203@mail.lifanov.com> References: <201404012241.s31MfRW6020684@svn.freebsd.org> <20140402154022.GA70867@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20140402155134.GG14379@glenbarber.us> <533C32F5.9050809@mail.lifanov.com> <20140402160650.GH14379@glenbarber.us> <533C3992.9030203@mail.lifanov.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2014-04-02 11:23, Nikolai Lifanov wrote: > On 04/02/14 12:06, Glen Barber wrote: >> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> With gzip(1) compression, downloadable image are reduced in >>>>>> size quite significantly. Build test against head@263927 >>>>>> shows the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> bootonly.iso: 64% smaller >>>>>> disc1.iso: 44% smaller >>>>>> memstick.img: 47% smaller >>>>>> mini-memstick.img: 65% smaller >>>>>> dvd1.iso: untested >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> full >>>>> 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). >>>>> >>>> >>>> delphij also brought this up. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> The benefit of xz(1) over gzip(1) was only 50M-ish. >>>> >>>> -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 >>>> >>>> Glen >>>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> 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 >> > > I just verified it with 7zip for Windows version 9.22. It extracts > .tar.xz archives and decompresses .xz images. > > - Nikolai Lifanov My concern was requiring a *specific* tool to extract the ISO. However I do see that Winzip and Winrar both now support XZ as well. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?434d33e39cfb20eec115bb6aac30817d>