Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Oct 2006 07:49:18 +0200 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |