From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 15 6:15:37 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 6185137BA8F for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:15:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2FEb4v29577; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:37:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:37:03 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Paul Robinson Cc: Luigi Rizzo , Sheldon Hearn , Arnout Boer , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why not gzip iso images? Message-ID: <20000315063703.H14789@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000315055046.C14789@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from wigstah@akitanet.co.uk on Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 02:43:27PM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Paul Robinson [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