On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 11:55:33AM -0400, Nikolai Lifanov wrote: > On 04/02/14 11:51, Glen Barber wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:40:22AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 10:41:27PM +0000, Glen Barber wrote: > >>> Author: gjb > >>> Date: Tue Apr 1 22:41:26 2014 > >>> New Revision: 264027 > >>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/264027 > >>> > >>> Log: > >>> Add a new release build variable, WITH_COMPRESSED_IMAGES. > >>> > >>> When set to a non-empty value, the installation medium is > >>> compressed with gzip(1) as part of the 'install' target in > >>> the release/ directory. > >>> > >>> With gzip(1) compression, downloadable image are reduced in > >>> size quite significantly. Build test against head@263927 > >>> shows the following: > >>> > >>> bootonly.iso: 64% smaller > >>> disc1.iso: 44% smaller > >>> memstick.img: 47% smaller > >>> mini-memstick.img: 65% smaller > >>> dvd1.iso: untested > >>> > >>> This option is off by default, I would eventually like to > >>> turn it on by default, and remove the '-k' flag to gzip(1) > >>> so only compressed images are published on FTP. > >> > >> I'd recommend testing xz compression as well. With UFS images of a full > >> world the savings vs gzip are significant (more than 30% IIRC, but it's > >> need more than a year since I checked so I'm a bit unsure of the exact > >> numbers). > >> > > > > delphij also brought this up. > > > > I have concerns with xz(1), since there was mention in IRC that Windows > > users may have problems decompressing xz-compressed images. So, gzip(1) > > is used because it seems to be the more commonly-supported archive > > mechanisms. > > > > The benefit of xz(1) over gzip(1) was only 50M-ish. > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 601M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 381M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.bz2 > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 392M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.gz > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 348M Mar 28 20:18 disc1.iso.xz > > > > Glen > > > > How about 7zip (Windows program, not file format)? What would a Windows > user use that can decompress gzip and not xz? It was a problem around > ~2007, but xz support is no longer rare or exotic. >
I don't know, to be honest. I have no Windows machines to test, so I can only go by what I am told. Glen
pgpyfKDz6Cw7Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature