From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Dec 18 14:20: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 82A5537B41A for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:19:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from gosset.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id ; 18 Dec 2001 22:19:57 +0000 (GMT) To: Juha Saarinen Cc: Gerhard Sittig , "stable@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Waaaarg, we just blew out the kernel again.. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:05:23 +1300." Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 22:19:57 +0000 From: Ian Dowse Message-ID: <200112182219.aa04064@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , 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