From owner-freebsd-current Thu Mar 16 0:49:15 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from happy.checkpoint.com (happy.checkpoint.com [199.203.156.224]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279CA37B7EF for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:49:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mellon@happy.checkpoint.com) Received: (from mellon@localhost) by happy.checkpoint.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20112; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:44:17 GMT (envelope-from mellon) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:44:17 +0000 From: Anatoly Vorobey To: Darryl Okahata Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why not gzip iso images? Message-ID: <20000316104417.A19846@happy.checkpoint.com> References: <20000315212001.A16904@happy.checkpoint.com> <200003152011.MAA15359@mina.sr.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200003152011.MAA15359@mina.sr.hp.com>; from darrylo@sr.hp.com on Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:11:48PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:11:48PM -0800, Darryl Okahata wrote: > While you are right about the download/gunzip times, compression > doesn't help that much. As has been mentioned in -hackers, the ISO > images only compress by 3% or so, or around ~20MB. So, instead of a > 640MB ISO image, you have a 620MB image. Is the 20MB significant? > (I don't know.) No, it isn't. I missed the -hackers discussion, sorry. 20Mb isn't worth the trouble, I was hoping it would be in the ballpark of 100-150 *sigh*. Someone else mentioned gzipping it just for error-checking; that doesn't seem to make much sense, as there're MD5 checksums available. -- Anatoly Vorobey, mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/ "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message