not a support question
kultex
offlineKey Master
the discussion about compression size ratio for the ios is a stupid one - the discussion must be - how much ram are needed to run SliTaz
Here is a good article about compression and speed
http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/
I just use gzip compressed Slitaz isos - they boot quicker on older machines
Trixar_za
offlineKey Master
It's not a stupid one. The upper limit for all packages installed with SliTaz is about 160MB if we want to be able to use it as a LiveCD that we could remove after boot. This boots OK, takes forever to compress and generally is about +-30MB to do with lzma. Now imagine if we can use a smaller and faster implementation of lzma (which xz is) which equals faster boot times and better compression (think +-25MB for what lzma needs about 38MB to do). Not only that, if we converted over packages to this, it would mean smaller package downloads which will equal faster setup from scratch, even on slow and crappy connections. Wouldn't that be worth your attention?
kultex
offlineKey Master
sorry - I cannot edit anymore - I was just interrupted..
if you really want a quick and good compressor - nanozip 0.09a http://www.nanozip.net/download.html it beats with the argument "-m.5g -cd" everything I know - to compare with lzma - 7zip uses lzma and lzma2 compression
see the list: http://compressionratings.com/sort.cgi?rating_sum.brief+4n
Trixar_za
offlineKey Master
In my experience xz compresses smaller than 7z. And yes, both uses lzma as it's basis, yet both are faster than pure lzma or lzma2.
kultex
offlineKey Master
"Not only that, if we converted over packages to this, it would mean smaller package downloads which will equal faster setup from scratch, even on slow and crappy connections. Wouldn't that be worth your attention?"
No, because in those places, where you have slow and crappy connections you have slow and crappy computers and like on my P I with 256 MB Ram lzma does not boot, but gzip without any problem
I have nothing against adding xz compression - I just think - for me boot time matters and not space - eg. the smallest media I found on normal shop is 64MB CF-card - but its more expensive than a 1 GB
Anonymous
offlineUnregistered
For me xz sounds like the best choice regarding speed / compression
and recompile debian/ubuntu kernel to smaller one to be equal to our own slitaz kernel
kultex
offlineKey Master
martin - no problem with xz, but what counts is the uncompressed OS - and the limits are: 128 MB Ram - 256 MB Ram and the next is 512 MB Ram - and the absolute limit for a system with 256 MB Ram is something 180 MB - better less 160 Mb as it is in Slitaz now, because the integrated grafic eats something and websites with fotos..... - if you are going bigger - than you can be quite bigger
compression is just a side problem
like thats the cheapest stick I found: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B003NSJYOE?SubscriptionId=AKIAIXNYVO2SJEYIT5VA&tag=geizhals07-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=12734&creativeASIN=B003NSJYOE
Anonymous
offlineUnregistered
Ofc we want to keep it small as possible, and fast boot times, im just looking for
a good way to keep this spinnoff being good and easy compatible with software
alldready compiled. ;)
Trixar_za
offlineKey Master
Generally, you get smaller archives for similar performance and resource usage (it's slightly slower) when compared to gzip. I think it would work well even on older computers - even better than the current lzma compression we're using now anyway :P
Anonymous
offlineUnregistered
Totally agree with you Trixar_za :P
You must log in to post.
