Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:37:03 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Paul Robinson <wigstah@akitanet.co.uk> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@info.iet.unipi.it>, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>, Arnout Boer <arnout@xs4all.nl>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why not gzip iso images? Message-ID: <20000315063703.H14789@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003151431580.4176-100000@jake.akitanet.co.uk>; from wigstah@akitanet.co.uk on Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 02:43:27PM %2B0000 References: <20000315055046.C14789@fw.wintelcom.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003151431580.4176-100000@jake.akitanet.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Paul Robinson <wigstah@akitanet.co.uk> [000315 06:14] wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > 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 > > I never thought I'd see the day that when considering sizes of downloads > people would look at a saving of 22Mb, and would say 'that's not much'... > > Fair enough, as a percentage it's marginal... but in countries where > internet access is not cheap, in fact is prohibitively slow and expensive > (the majority of the planet), I think this saving shows a little respect > and concern for the less fortunate home user stuck with a 56K modem paying > $x/hour where x can be anywhere between 0.5 and 5... > > > 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. > > If you save 20Mb, over a reliable 56Kb modem, you've saved them somewhere > in the region of one and a half hours... I think you guys are too used to > your broadband... :) > > Let's also assume that a mirrored FTP site is limited to XGb/mth... all it > would take is for a 100 downloads to cause an extra 2Gb of that to be > taken up.... > > Personally, I feel that everything that can be compressed for download, > should be. It would speed up downloads, would be more economical in terms > of bandwidth, cost and time, and I think would be generally considered > respectful for those users with crappy links. You're not going to get much sympathy from me... ~ % ftp ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/release/i386/ISO-IMAGES/ Connected to wizard.freesoftware.com. ... ftp> get 3.4-install.iso local: 3.4-install.iso remote: 3.4-install.iso 227 Entering Passive Mode (209,155,82,20,112,101) 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for '3.4-install.iso' (647815168 bytes). 100% |**************************************************| 617 MB 00:00 ETA 226 Transfer complete. 647815168 bytes received in 147.34 seconds (4.19 MB/s) :) Seriously though, there's no reason not to have the ISOs up in compressed format though. I guess given a choice between _only_ compressed or _only_ uncompressed I think uncompressed is better, but if the space is available it would be nice to see compressed images available. Before anyone tries it here's bzipped (worse than gzip) results: -rw-r--r-- 1 bright staff 647815168 Dec 28 19:23 3.4-install.iso -rw-r--r-- 1 bright staff 629685893 Dec 28 19:23 3.4-install.iso.bz2 -- -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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000315063703.H14789>