[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061002054918.GA8388@1wt.eu>
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