Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:29:14 +0000 (UTC) From: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RELEASE discs & ISO images (for future) Message-ID: <slrnftsefa.1dfj.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net> References: <20080315012451.674530f4.ota@j.email.ne.jp> <200803150904.m2F94emj014374@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Oliver Fromme! On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:04:40 +0100 (CET); Oliver Fromme wrote about 'Re: RELEASE discs & ISO images (for future)': >>> 224655360 7.0-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso >>> 94493696 7.0-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso.uzip (16k cluster) >>> 110188032 7.0-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso.uzip (2K cluster) >>> >>> So the difference is 124 MB for 16K cluster size, and >>> 109 MB for 2K cluster size (which is noticably faster >>> during access). Actually the space savings will be a >>> bit less, because the /boot directory (about 30 MB) >>> won't be compressed. So the real gain is probably a >>> little less than 100 MB in the 2K case. >> >> By the way, the maxmum cluster size is 127k or 130048 with uzip, >> if you want to maximize the compression ratio. > That would make the live FS painfully slow, and it wouldn't > make a big difference from the default (16K). > It is already noticeably slow with the default cluster size > of 16K on my test machine (a 1 GHz VIA C3), so would rather > prefer to use 2K cluster size, even though compression will > be not quite as good. (2K is the minimum, less than that > doesn't make sense for CD9660 media because the physical > sector size is 2K.) How much is slowdown from 2K to 16K ? I think it's not worth to loose in compression ratio in 16K -> 2K, in opposit to 127K which will really gain nothing, yes. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nuclight@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrnftsefa.1dfj.vadim_nuclight>