Re: some statistics on using bz2 for packages
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 09:38:30PM -0400, Terry Katz wrote:
> .. I know thats common in many areas, though) .. However, we had a
> dilemna to work out .. at what point do we 'increase' the requirements
> of some of the areas of our site .. I know its a good thing to keep
> stuff aimed toward the lowest end possible, but how long can you do
> that?
First, the choice between bz2 and gz compression is purely a space/time
tradeoff. You can use both on low-end machines, but the bz2 compression
is much more painful. You can use both in archives, but the gz
compression is somewhat more painful.
Looking at the space/time ratios, and the nature of the various files,
I think we can pick an arbitrary set of guidelines for which compression
technique should be used.
For example, I think that -- once we're ready to actually deploy bz2
-- xbooks (and, for that matter, the xfree86 .orig.tar files) is a
nice example of something where bz2 is probably the best idea, while
essential packages are probably examples where we should be using gz
for a long time.
--
Raul
Reply to: