From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 15 9:50:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns.cvzoom.net (ns.cvzoom.net [208.226.154.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C00C337C2B3 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:47:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dmmiller@cvzoom.net) Received: (qmail 307 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2000 17:46:58 -0000 Received: from acs-63-85-133-249.cvzoom.net (HELO cvzoom.net) (63.85.133.249) by ns.cvzoom.net with SMTP; 15 Mar 2000 17:46:58 -0000 Message-ID: <38CFCC78.2EBD0459@cvzoom.net> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:46:32 -0500 From: Donn Miller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnout Boer Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why not gzip iso images? References: <200003150629.WAA67193@zippy.cdrom.com> <20000315134211.A47945@tomcat.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Arnout Boer wrote: > But for the ISO images... IS it a problem to gzip > them.... > They take less space on the master site and the mirror > sites and they take less bandwidth! But, how much would the ISO be able to be compressed? The source is already a split, compressed tarball, for example... > Less bandwidth and less time to download > even economical a good thing! I think we should use bzip2 to compress the images. Someone should try to compress the images using gzip, and then bzip2, and compare the file sizes. Bzip2 is an awesome compression program, but I understand that gzip is better at compressing certain things for a small number of cases. Use the -v option to both, and see what it reports for the compression %'age. - Donn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message