| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 07:49:18 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> To: David Lang <dlang@...italinsight.com> Cc: Drew Scott Daniels <ddaniels@...lumni.mb.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Smaller compressed kernel source tarballs? On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 10:11:49PM -0700, David Lang wrote: > On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > >A lot of improvement can be made in tar to compress better archive with > >large number of small files such as the kernel. You just have to see the > >difference in archive size depending on the base directory name. If you > >come up with something really interesting which does not alter the output > >format nor the compression time, it might get a place in the git-tar-tree > >command. But IMHO, it would me more interesting to further reduce patches > >size than tarballs size, since patches might be downloaded far more often. > > I just had what's probably a silly thought. > > as an alturnative to useing tar, what about useing a git pack? Nice idea, but I tried on 2.4 : 43 MB for git-pack vs 38 for tar.gz and 31 for tar.bz2. However, it is blazingly fast. 4 seconds vs 30 for tar.gz (hot cache). When speed is important, it's a clear winner. When size matters, it's not the best solution. Regards, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists