Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:27:25 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC src/sys/alpha/confGENERIC src/sys/sparc64/conf GENERIC src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC src/sys/pc98/conf GENERIC Message-ID: <3FD65A5D.6060407@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <20031209165827.GA18959@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200312072352.hB7Nqsw6011333@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031208190305.GA956@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20031209070020.GC59494@perrin.nxad.com> <20031209165827.GA18959@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:00:20PM -0800, Sean Chittenden wrote:
>
>> ... Moving from gzip to bzip2 for the base files reduces the
>>current size of the base files by about 13-22%.
>
> I've been trying to move us to bzip2 for the base distribution files
> since 4.6 (2 years now). RE has blocked it before ...
Two observations:
1) bunzip2 requires almost 4MB of memory,
compared to gunzip's 600KB.
2) bunzip2 is about 10x slower than gunzip on my system.
(Decompressing the openoffice tarball: 42s vs. 4s)
Switching to bzip2 format could significantly slow
installs and/or boost minimum memory requirements.
Has anyone built a set of bzip2 install CDs and measured
the time hit and/or memory requirements?
Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FD65A5D.6060407>