From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 15 5:31:25 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756CF37B9EF for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 05:31:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2FDrHj28359; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 05:53:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 05:53:17 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Kai Voigt Cc: Matt Heckaman , Arnout Boer , FreeBSD-CURRENT Subject: Re: Why not gzip iso images? Message-ID: <20000315055316.D14789@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000315134211.A47945@tomcat.xs4all.nl> <20000315142247.M30974@abc.123.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000315142247.M30974@abc.123.org>; from k@123.org on Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 02:22:47PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Kai Voigt [000315 05:47] wrote: > Matt Heckaman wrote: > > It's been my experience that gzipping an ISO (or other compression tools) > > do not make enough different to justify the time it takes to both compress > > and uncompress these things. For example, the time needed to un-gzip the > > ISO could be longer than the time it would take to download the space that > > was saved by it. > > This would only happen once for the user. But for the FTP server, the > amount of saved bandwidth accumulates with each download. I feel pretty confident assuming that most people that burn ISOs probably keep enough disk space free to hold one and not much more, going from a requirement of ~650MB to ~1.2GB wouldn't be a smart move imo. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message