From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 15 5:29: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E1C37B9B6 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 05:29:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2FDokq28322; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 05:50:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 05:50:46 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Sheldon Hearn , Arnout Boer , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why not gzip iso images? Message-ID: <20000315055046.C14789@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <52892.953125576@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> <200003151308.OAA99478@info.iet.unipi.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200003151308.OAA99478@info.iet.unipi.it>; from luigi@info.iet.unipi.it on Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 02:08:25PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Luigi Rizzo [000315 05:34] wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:42:11 +0100, Arnout Boer wrote: > > > > > But for the ISO images... IS it a problem to gzip > > > them.... > > > > Well, I can think of at least one problem. Think of the extra disk > > space folks would need for the gunzip step. :-) > > and compression ratio would not be that much. The tarballs are > already compressed, and so are the packages. The only image to > benefit from compression would be the live file system. And not that much even with that: -rw-r--r-- 1 bright staff 647815168 Dec 28 19:23 3.4-install.iso -rw-r--r-- 1 bright staff 625839147 Dec 28 19:23 3.4-install.iso.gz that's not gzip -9, but I think I've done that in the past to the disks and it still didn't help all that much. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message