RELEASE discs & ISO images (for future)
vadim_nuclight at mail.ru
Mon Mar 17 02:29:28 PDT 2008
Hi Oliver Fromme!
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:04:40 +0100 (CET); Oliver Fromme wrote about 'Re: RELEASE discs & ISO images (for future)':
>>> 224655360 7.0-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso
>>> 94493696 7.0-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso.uzip (16k cluster)
>>> 110188032 7.0-RELEASE-i386-livefs.iso.uzip (2K cluster)
>>> So the difference is 124 MB for 16K cluster size, and
>>> 109 MB for 2K cluster size (which is noticably faster
>>> during access). Actually the space savings will be a
>>> bit less, because the /boot directory (about 30 MB)
>>> won't be compressed. So the real gain is probably a
>>> little less than 100 MB in the 2K case.
>> By the way, the maxmum cluster size is 127k or 130048 with uzip,
>> if you want to maximize the compression ratio.
> That would make the live FS painfully slow, and it wouldn't
> make a big difference from the default (16K).
> It is already noticeably slow with the default cluster size
> of 16K on my test machine (a 1 GHz VIA C3), so would rather
> prefer to use 2K cluster size, even though compression will
> be not quite as good. (2K is the minimum, less than that
> doesn't make sense for CD9660 media because the physical
> sector size is 2K.)
How much is slowdown from 2K to 16K ? I think it's not worth to loose in
compression ratio in 16K -> 2K, in opposit to 127K which will really gain
WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nuclight at mail.ru
[Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]
More information about the freebsd-current