Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 22:19:57 +0000 From: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> To: Juha Saarinen <juha@saarinen.org> Cc: Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net>, "stable@freebsd.org" <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Waaaarg, we just blew out the kernel again.. Message-ID: <200112182219.aa04064@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:05:23 %2B1300." <Pine.WNT.4.43.0112191104290.1276-100000@den2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.WNT.4.43.0112191104290.1276-100000@den2>, Juha Saarinen writes : >> bzip2 has been around for a while and has been shipped since >> 4.4-RELEASE. :) When I see the constant "who put another >> three KB into the kernel and thus broke release?" against the >> "9KB plus for the loader versus 40KB gain for the kernel" >> switching to bzip2 should give some room to breath(sp?). > >Is there much difference in speed between the compression methods? That >is, would bzip2 be an issue on older, low-spec machines? According to sobomax's commit log for the loader bzip2 support, the loader has limited memory, so it is necessary to compress the kernel with 'bzip2 -1'. I'm only getting a 17.2k reduction with that option (vs a 50.6k reduction with the default bzip2 compression), so unfortunately the apparent 40k gain goes down to around 10k. Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi? <200112182219.aa04064>