From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 15 14: 9:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de (dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.243.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0EF37C22A for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:09:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22951; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:09:26 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:09:26 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200003152209.XAA22951@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why not gzip iso images? X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-current In-Reply-To: <8aorf2$htp$1@atlantis.rz.tu-clausthal.de> User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-19991219-STABLE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote in list.freebsd-current: > AFAICR, the one time that a gzip and bzip version were available the size > was not all that significant and there were promptly removed. That's true. Most of the files in the ISO images are already compressed, so trying to gzip it saves only a few percent. Also take into account that many people are downloading and recoding the images on Windows boxes, which don't have gzip by default. > However, if you consider the size of the file and the possibility of > corruption, then it should be archived with gzip and forget the compression > (gzip -1). Now it can be checked for errors. Jordan kindly provides MD5 checksums of the ISO images, which are much more reliable than gzip's checksums. > Another issue is the size. Many factors determine how quickly one can > obtain the ISO. It would be nice if it were broken into smaller > volumes. About 10-20 MB each would be good. That way should something > fail, there less time and bandwidth wasted should one need to start over. That would just make things more complicated, and there's no reason for that. That's what the "reget" command is good for -- no reason to start over at all. Regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, Leibnizstr. 18/61, 38678 Clausthal, Germany (Info: finger userinfo:olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de) "In jedem Stück Kohle wartet ein Diamant auf seine Geburt" (Terry Pratchett) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message