Re: [debian-knoppix] remastering: problems with create_compressed_fs
so i tried and remastered with ext2 and reiserfs and got different sizes though different ext2 block sizes (i tried 1024 and 4096) don't seem to make any difference (i didn't test in detail just as far as i remember)
well if it doesn't require to much work i would like to know under what circumstances klaus makes his isos?
g' night
Simon
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
Jeremy Cohoe <jeremy@illuminatedtechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> The way that I did it was just 'cp -Rp /KNOPPIX/* /mnt/sda1/Source/
>
> - J
>
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Simon Friedberger wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Isabella
> > Would be nice to know how you decompressed the image and copied the source, too. I am still not sure if the problem actually is the compression
> > Thanks
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:17:30 -0700
> > "Isabella" <isabella@fatport.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > This is the Knoppix script I use to create the iso:
> > >
> > > #!/bin/bash
> > > rm /KNOPPIX/New-Master/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX
> > > mkisofs -R /KNOPPIX/New-Source | create_compressed_fs - 65536 >
> > > /KNOPPIX/New-Master/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX
> > > mkisofs -r -J -b KNOPPIX/boot.img -c KNOPPIX/boot.cat -o
> > > /mnt/windows/new.iso /KNOPPIX/New-Master
> > > echo "Done"
> > >
> > > The only time I have had problems with iso images being too large was when I
> > > forgot to delete stuff I had copied over. I have done a bunch of custom
> > > builds where the only thing I did was create 3 text files in /etc/init.d/,
> > > and the re-compressed iso fit onto a 700meg CD. PEBKAC.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Isabella
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Simon Friedberger" <knoppix@friedberger.de>
> > > To: <debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 5:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [debian-knoppix] remastering: problems with
> > > create_compressed_fs
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually i did exactly the same but with mounting with cloop and guess
> > > what? my file had 733....bytes ...? ok so we agree there is some overhead?
> > > but how can i get rid of it? ;)
> > > > smaller block size?
> > > >
> > > > good night
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:38:39 -0700
> > > > Jared Rhine <jared@wordzoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [Klaus == knopper@linuxtag.org on Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:09:03 +0200]
> > > > >
> > > > > >> i decompressed the KNOPPIX cloop fs and compressed it again ...and
> > > > > >> it had grown about 10mb
> > > > >
> > > > > Klaus> Watch out for hardlinks! This could be the reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > It could also be that compression is not perfectly symmetric; that
> > > > > uncompressing and recompressing again produces a slightly larger file.
> > > > > There's some evidence for this, shown below. Doing an uncompress
> > > > > followed immediately by a compress expands the KNOPPIX file from
> > > > > 725,032,363 bytes to 727,812,929 bytes. This probably doesn't happen
> > > > > when mounting using cloop loopback.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- begin --
> > > > >
> > > > > -> cd /mnt/d4/test
> > > > >
> > > > > -> ls -l
> > > > > total 716836
> > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 jared jared 733317120 Jun 30 03:48
> > > knoppix_v3.2-2003-06-06-en.iso
> > > > >
> > > > > -> sudo mount -t iso9660 -o loop knoppix_v3.2-2003-06-06-en.iso
> > > /mnt/test
> > > > >
> > > > > -> ls -l /mnt/test/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX
> > > > > -r--r--r-- 1 root root 725032363 Jun 6 09:06
> > > /mnt/test/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX
> > > > >
> > > > > -> extract_compressed_fs /mnt/test/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX >
> > > /mnt/d4/test/extracted
> > > > > 29239 blocks of size 65536. Preamble:
> > > > > #!/bin/sh
> > > > > insmod cloop.o file=$0 && mount -r -t iso9660 /dev/cloop $1
> > > > > exit $?
> > > > >
> > > > > Block 0 length 11945 => 65536
> > > > > Block 1 length 30324 => 65536
> > > > > Block 2 length 30546 => 65536
> > > > > Block 3 length 29327 => 65536
> > > > > Block head:78DAECBD877F1CD5
> > > > > Block tail:61CF0E315D18D948
> > > > > Block 4 length 34020 => 65536
> > > > > Block 5 length 18788 => 65536
> > > > > Block 6 length 9368 => 65536
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > -> ls -l .
> > > > > total 2589964
> > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 jared jared 1916207104 Jun 30 04:13 extracted
> > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 jared jared 733317120 Jun 30 03:48
> > > knoppix_v3.2-2003-06-06-en.iso
> > > > >
> > > > > -> cat extracted | create_compressed_fs - 65536 > recompressed
> > > > > Block# 0 size 65536 -> 11963 [compression ratio 18%, overall:
> > > 18%]
> > > > > Block# 1 size 65536 -> 30321 [compression ratio 46%, overall:
> > > 32%]
> > > > > Block# 2 size 65536 -> 30545 [compression ratio 46%, overall:
> > > 37%]
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > -> ls -l /mnt/test/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX /mnt/d4/test
> > > > > -r--r--r-- 1 root root 725032363 Jun 6 09:06
> > > /mnt/test/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX
> > > > >
> > > > > /mnt/d4/test:
> > > > > total 3301420
> > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 jared jared 1916207104 Jun 30 04:13 extracted
> > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 jared jared 733317120 Jun 30 03:48
> > > knoppix_v3.2-2003-06-06-en.iso
> > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 jared jared 727812929 Jun 30 05:29 recompressed
> > > > >
> > > > > -- end --
> > > > >
> > > > > -- jared@wordzoo.com
> > > > >
> > > > > "A black hole is where God is dividing by zero."
> > > > > -- attributed to Roger Smith
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > debian-knoppix mailing list
> > > > > debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org
> > > > > http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > debian-knoppix mailing list
> > > > debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org
> > > > http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > debian-knoppix mailing list
> > > debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org
> > > http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix
> >
> >
> >
>
--
_______________________________________________
debian-knoppix mailing list
debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org
http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix
Reply to: