Re: pretty please can we kill the png optimizer?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 5:36 AM Martin Pitt wrote: > Didier Roche [2015-08-12 12:29 +0200]: > > Le 12/08/2015 12:15, Martin Pitt a écrit : > > >Sebastien Bacher [2015-08-12 12:03 +0200]: > > >>Did anyone measure what difference with/without the png optimizer would > > >>make on the iso/standard install? Without numbers we can't really > decide > > >>on the cost/benefit... > > >Back on natty it was ~ 5.5 MB (compressed size) gain with compressing > > >PNGs and 7 MB with compressing SVGs. > > > > > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/performance-desktop-n-install-footprint > > > > > >There is no reason to believe that the numbers would be dramatically > > >different these days, i. e. you can expect a 10 to 15 MB gain on a > > >desktop ISO from this. > > > > > >Martin > > > > Is that only iso/image size (so recompressed in the squashfs) or the > gain of > > an ubuntu install itself, on disk? > > As I said, "compressed size", i. e. squashfs/deb difference. PNGs > are already compressed so don't make much difference on an install; > SVGs will get quite a bit bigger uncompressed (but I don't have any > numbers). > > Martin > > -- > Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de > Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) > > > On the worst offenders, what about working with upstream to get the png optimizations submitted and accepted? When this happens set up an environment variable in debian/rules to indicate to skip optimization as it's not necessary. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: pretty please can we kill the png optimizer?
Didier Roche [2015-08-12 12:29 +0200]: > Le 12/08/2015 12:15, Martin Pitt a écrit : > >Sebastien Bacher [2015-08-12 12:03 +0200]: > >>Did anyone measure what difference with/without the png optimizer would > >>make on the iso/standard install? Without numbers we can't really decide > >>on the cost/benefit... > >Back on natty it was ~ 5.5 MB (compressed size) gain with compressing > >PNGs and 7 MB with compressing SVGs. > > > > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/performance-desktop-n-install-footprint > > > >There is no reason to believe that the numbers would be dramatically > >different these days, i. e. you can expect a 10 to 15 MB gain on a > >desktop ISO from this. > > > >Martin > > Is that only iso/image size (so recompressed in the squashfs) or the gain of > an ubuntu install itself, on disk? As I said, "compressed size", i. e. squashfs/deb difference. PNGs are already compressed so don't make much difference on an install; SVGs will get quite a bit bigger uncompressed (but I don't have any numbers). Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: pretty please can we kill the png optimizer?
Le 12/08/2015 12:15, Martin Pitt a écrit : Sebastien Bacher [2015-08-12 12:03 +0200]: Did anyone measure what difference with/without the png optimizer would make on the iso/standard install? Without numbers we can't really decide on the cost/benefit... Back on natty it was ~ 5.5 MB (compressed size) gain with compressing PNGs and 7 MB with compressing SVGs. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/performance-desktop-n-install-footprint There is no reason to believe that the numbers would be dramatically different these days, i. e. you can expect a 10 to 15 MB gain on a desktop ISO from this. Martin Is that only iso/image size (so recompressed in the squashfs) or the gain of an ubuntu install itself, on disk? Didier -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: pretty please can we kill the png optimizer?
2015-08-12 4:34 GMT+03:00 Matthias Klose : > we don't ship cd images anymore, we are not limited to CD sizes, and as long > as > we don't hit some 2GB limit, we shouldn't optimize for size. This "optimizer" > adds for some packages 100% build time, in rare occasions up to 2000%. This > is > not worth the savings. If we want to optimize for size, this should be done > by > test rebuilds and individual patches, not consuming scare buildd resources. I'd support this, as the PNG repacking is hugely time consuming on especially armhf Qt builds. If I recall correctly it's pretty near that 100% in eg qtdeclarative, making it 2h instead of 1h, and very slow also with for example qtbase amd64. And whenever doing a big amount of no-change rebuilds, the build times add up. In test builds I try to remember to use export NO_PNG_PKG_MANGLE := 1 in debian/rules. It's not that the feature itself is bad, but optipng is just slow for the gain it brings on average. Just being able to run it utilizing all CPU:s would probably help, or maybe different parameters. There are alternative tools in archives like pngquant, but that one is lossy (funny for a PNG). Some are faster and do better compression, but are not free software. -Timo -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: pretty please can we kill the png optimizer?
Sebastien Bacher [2015-08-12 12:03 +0200]: > Did anyone measure what difference with/without the png optimizer would > make on the iso/standard install? Without numbers we can't really decide > on the cost/benefit... Back on natty it was ~ 5.5 MB (compressed size) gain with compressing PNGs and 7 MB with compressing SVGs. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/performance-desktop-n-install-footprint There is no reason to believe that the numbers would be dramatically different these days, i. e. you can expect a 10 to 15 MB gain on a desktop ISO from this. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: pretty please can we kill the png optimizer?
Le 12/08/2015 03:34, Matthias Klose a écrit : > Hi, > > we don't ship cd images anymore, we are not limited to CD sizes, and as long > as > we don't hit some 2GB limit, we shouldn't optimize for size. Hey Matthias, While we are indeed not limited by a CD size we should not let the iso freely drift because that has a cost (slower to download/install for users, more bandwith use for our users, less space on the system to use, etc). Did anyone measure what difference with/without the png optimizer would make on the iso/standard install? Without numbers we can't really decide on the cost/benefit... Cheers, Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: pretty please can we kill the png optimizer?
hi, Am Mittwoch, den 12.08.2015, 03:34 +0200 schrieb Matthias Klose: > Hi, > > we don't ship cd images anymore, we are not limited to CD sizes, and as long > as > we don't hit some 2GB limit, we shouldn't optimize for size. This "optimizer" > adds for some packages 100% build time, in rare occasions up to 2000%. This > is > not worth the savings. If we want to optimize for size, this should be done > by > test rebuilds and individual patches, not consuming scare buildd resources. > while this may be true for desktop isos, we are still size constrained on the phone, if there is anything seeded on the phone that uses the optimizer today it needs to go on to do so (the phone images are limited to the size of the cache partition of the phones) ciao oli -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
