From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Dec 18 15: 8: 0 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0494E37B416 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:07:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fBINEUO03453; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:14:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200112182314.fBINEUO03453@mass.dis.org> To: Juha Saarinen Cc: Gerhard Sittig , "stable@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Waaaarg, we just blew out the kernel again.. In-Reply-To: Message from Juha Saarinen of "Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:05:23 +1300." Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:14:30 -0800 From: Mike Smith 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 > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > > > 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? bzip2 is expensive in the compression pass; I don't think decompression is much different though. btw, thanks to Gerhard for pointing out that I don't pay close enough attention to my commit mail. 8) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message