Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:12:41 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> Cc: Juha Saarinen <juha@saarinen.org>, Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net>, "stable@freebsd.org" <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Waaaarg, we just blew out the kernel again.. Message-ID: <20011219191240.GA3505@student.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <200112182314.fBINEUO03453@mass.dis.org> References: <Pine.WNT.4.43.0112191104290.1276-100000@den2> <200112182314.fBINEUO03453@mass.dis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 03:14:30PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > > 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. bzip2 is slower and uses more memory than gzip for decompression too. I think using bzip2 instead of gzip might be painful on old low-end machines. (Low-end here defined as 386/486 class machines with 16MB RAM or less.) -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se 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?20011219191240.GA3505>