Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:55:33 -0400 From: Nikolai Lifanov <lifanov@mail.lifanov.com> To: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r264027 - in head: release share/man/man7 Message-ID: <533C32F5.9050809@mail.lifanov.com> In-Reply-To: <20140402155134.GG14379@glenbarber.us> References: <201404012241.s31MfRW6020684@svn.freebsd.org> <20140402154022.GA70867@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20140402155134.GG14379@glenbarber.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. - Nikolai Lifanov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?533C32F5.9050809>