Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:21:01 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: compress INDEX with xz, instead of bz2? Message-ID: <4FF8C45D.9060007@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo838Qr9cxC3wChixtGJt=6uhdPNOY-C7zPPRVUzLc2XMrFg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20120707191830.GA83424@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <CADLo838Qr9cxC3wChixtGJt=6uhdPNOY-C7zPPRVUzLc2XMrFg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/07/2012 14:35, Chris Rees wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2012 8:19 PM, "Anton Shterenlikht" <mexas@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> A very minor point
>>
>> # make fetchindex
>> /usr/ports/INDEX-10.bz2 100% of 1621 kB 208 kBps
>> # ls -al INDEX-10
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 26284787 Jul 7 20:08 INDEX-10
>> # xz INDEX-10
>> # ls -al INDEX-10.xz
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1350156 Jul 7 20:08 INDEX-10.xz
>> #
>>
>> So xz saves ~19% compared to bz2 for this file.
>>
>> Now that xz is in the base,
>> perhaps making INDEX available compressed
>> with xz would help some people who are still
>> on slow download lines.
>
> We still have to support 7.x, which does not have xz.
So compress INDEX-7 with bz2, and the others with xz. The more
interesting question is whether or not xz is in the base for all
currently supported versions of FreeBSD 8 and 9, minus 1 or 2 versions
to be safe.
... and insert obligatory rant about how we need to totally rethink what
"the base system" is because our historical model stifles innovation in
exactly this way ...
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FF8C45D.9060007>