-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> If I'd downloaded this thing over a decent DSL or cable modem 
> line, bzip2 would actually be a net loss in total 
> download + uncompress time.

I think the download time is a lot more important to people than 
the uncompression time. A savings of nearly 1.5 Megs is 
significant, no matter what type of line you are on. If we can 
shave off 1.5M for a 56K user, why not?

My runtime tests were also different:

bzip -9: 8.959 real
bzip -1: 7.473 real
gzip -9: 1.491 real

That's not much of a difference, and (IMO) is more than offset 
by the smaller download size. Bandwidth should be a more 
important factor: after all, the next few steps (tar, 
configure, make) are going to make the unzipping seem fast 
in comparison. :)

I'm not advocating *replacing* gzip with bzip2, but I do think 
we should make it an option. It should not be that much 
trouble.

Digital signatures, on the other hand, are a lot more trouble 
but are much more important than the gzip/bzip2 issue....


Greg Sabino Mullane
greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200111201606

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html

iQA/AwUBO/rG+LybkGcUlkrIEQJO8wCdGlZgyQUTYwLUMTrSwcmmnUx0nlYAn37H
I6W1G8h+7jQIIiBTuHQeKQB7
=PtZi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:07:22 -0500
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com>
Re: beta3 
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:

> > If I'd downloaded this thing over a decent DSL or cable modem 
> > line, bzip2 would actually be a net loss in total 
> > download + uncompress time.
> 
> I think the download time is a lot more important to people than 
> the uncompression time. A savings of nearly 1.5 Megs is 
> significant, no matter what type of line you are on.

And for CD space (I'd love bzipped binaries), ftp space, etc (not only
for mirrors, but for distributions shipping postgresql and mirrors
thereeof.

-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d
Red Hat, Inc.

20 Nov 2001 16:44:54 -0500
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=)
Re: beta3
On 20 Nov 2001, Trond Eivind [iso-8859-1] Glomsr�d wrote:

> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
>
> > > If I'd downloaded this thing over a decent DSL or cable modem
> > > line, bzip2 would actually be a net loss in total
> > > download + uncompress time.
> >
> > I think the download time is a lot more important to people than
> > the uncompression time. A savings of nearly 1.5 Megs is
> > significant, no matter what type of line you are on.
>
> And for CD space (I'd love bzipped binaries), ftp space, etc (not only
> for mirrors, but for distributions shipping postgresql and mirrors
> thereeof.

Huh?  You are advocating adding to the ftp space required? *raised
eyebrow*



Tue, 20 Nov 2001 22:40:31 -0500 (EST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: beta3
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

> On 20 Nov 2001, Trond Eivind [iso-8859-1] Glomsrï¿½d wrote:
> 
> > "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
> >
> > > > If I'd downloaded this thing over a decent DSL or cable modem
> > > > line, bzip2 would actually be a net loss in total
> > > > download + uncompress time.
> > >
> > > I think the download time is a lot more important to people than
> > > the uncompression time. A savings of nearly 1.5 Megs is
> > > significant, no matter what type of line you are on.
> >
> > And for CD space (I'd love bzipped binaries), ftp space, etc (not only
> > for mirrors, but for distributions shipping postgresql and mirrors
> > thereeof.
> 
> Huh?  You are advocating adding to the ftp space required? *raised
> eyebrow*

Replace gz with bz2, and you'll save :) - also, bzipped files will
allow others who only ship one instance (like us - we only need one
tarball for the SRPM), and these will save space.


-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d
Red Hat, Inc.

21 Nov 2001 10:34:50 -0500
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=)
Re: beta3