Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol"__sF")
Here's my final statement on the subject: o It's ~20 hours, compressed, ~24 hours uncompressed. o It's 15 minutes less, for a standard Pacific Bell DSL line, assuming you get the 500K/second. o It's 40 minutes out of ~6 hours, for EarthLink or Hughes Satellite broadband, iDSL, or two channel ISDN. I personally downloaded the ISO snapshot from Japan, because the DP1 ISO image was approximately three times the size: it cut two days off my download time. Compression is not a hardship for the receiver, who can decompress in-band with the tools that are available to them, so if there is a local disk space issue (enough room for one copy, but not enough room for two), it can be resolved that way. This is a statistically unlikely situation, given that they could always use the FreeBSD partition they intended to install on, in order to provide temporary storage: it is nearly impossible to buy a hard drive that small these days, let alone install a decompressed FreeBSD from the compressed ISO images. The intent of the snapshots are for people to test out the full system. However, this is not how people use them. Snapshots are frequently used to install -current the first time, in order to get bootstrapped, after which people use CVSup, and then rebuild from source to track -current. If you think downloading an ISO is time consuming, consider the initial CVSup operation to get a local copy of the source tree. Japan and the U.S. are very different. Japan is deploying broadband everywhere. The U.S. has deployed broadband to a very small area, in areas of high population density. No one has properly addressed "the last mile" in the U.S.; instead, they have built supporting backbone infrastructure, and left it for someone else to build "the last mile". The result of this idiocy has been Worldcom going bankrupt, Global Crossing going bankrupt, etc.: it's like building an interstate highway system, but leaving dirt roads into all of the cities. The few companies who have "addressed the last mile" have done so with a broken understanding of the purpose of the Internet: they believe it to be a medium for pushing content to people, rather than a tool for people to communicate. As a result, people are not permited to run servers at their house, and the up-channel is almost always significantly slower than the down-channel. The result of this is that the upchannel is often limited to 1.5 times the size necessary to simply handle the CP "ACK" traffic for the downchannel (do the math on your cable modem or ADSL line). Even if they were to "graciously permit" you to run a server, it would still be a practical impossibility. They want to treat the Internet like television, instead of like the telephone. This is understandable: most of the people who provide "the last mile" are cable television companies. There is insufficient bandwidth for a television quality two-way video telephone call in nearly all of these so-called "broadband last mile" solutions. To paraphrase, "they are all dressed up, with nowhere to go". Until someone addresses this disparity in the U.S., as it is being addressed in Japan, the primary use of things like the ISO snapshots is going to *remain* as a synchronization tool for developers, not a set of test images that get downloaded, burned to CD-R, and then tested for functionality. I realize that your intent is to serve a specific audience, to a specific purpose; I'm telling you, though, that it's not how the images are being used, and it's not how the images *will* be used, for quite some time, given the technology environment in which your users exist. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol"__sF")
> Makoto Matsushita wrote: > > carl> 3.4 hours is a lot of time on a dial-up connection (granted it > > carl> is not a one size fits all period of time). > > > > You forget that you still compressed image with about 30 hours (at > > least, full 1 day or more), and it is not helpful for ordinal users, > > not you. > > > > Again, reducing hours/percentages with compressed image doesn't > > matter; please focus total download time which is actually needed for > > all users. Missing the point is not helpful for the discussion. > > I downloaded the image over a 28.8K modem. > > If you have access to the FTP logs, the duration of the connection > times could be digested to see the connection speed for each download > request for the file. > > -- Terry > Haven't you guys burnt enough bandwidth on something that nothing will be done about? It's kind of hard to pick out the important posts when cluttered with all this noise. Eh? George To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol"__sF")
carl> I fail to see how a reduction of hours (even just one) is carl> insignificant to someone on a dial-up connection. Time is money carl> for some people; even a meager three hours. Don't you think "30+ hours of time to fetch an ISO image" is _not_ wasting of money? carl> Again, I fail to see how a reduction in download time for -anyone- is carl> insignificant. Can you explain how I am missing the point? These ISO images are build everyday. That means, after 24 hours have past, new ISO image are available. Yes, compressing images help less downloading time and it'll be helpful for someone. However, - For xDSL and/or optical line users, reducing time is maybe less than hours. It can be considered as a range of error. - For slow analog modem users, reducing time is about several hours. However, they still have to spend more than 1 day to fetch. It can be also considered as a range of error. so I think there are small number of peoples who get lots of merits by compressed ISO images. The costs of compressing images is small, but not zero. Somebody already argues to me that "hey, please stop compressing ISO images. You should know that it costs several minutes/hours to make available images for the public." Providing both compressing and uncompressing images are hard to accomplish due to the disk spaces. *** carl> I think it would be better to focus on whether or not the carl> snapshot machine can even handle such a task, and, more carl> importantly, whether the administrator even wants to do it. I have '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' hat on my head. I don't say "I hate to compress ISO images." However, I think there is very few merits for compressing images. There are many tasks for providing whole services; if it can be avoidable task, I would like not to do. Your requests are very valuable suggestion for me, but at this time, please wait it until I can get more CPU time and disk spaces (but I don't know when it comes true.) -- - Makoto `MAR' Matsushita To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol"__sF")
Makoto Matsushita wrote: > carl> 3.4 hours is a lot of time on a dial-up connection (granted it > carl> is not a one size fits all period of time). > > You forget that you still compressed image with about 30 hours (at > least, full 1 day or more), and it is not helpful for ordinal users, > not you. > > Again, reducing hours/percentages with compressed image doesn't > matter; please focus total download time which is actually needed for > all users. Missing the point is not helpful for the discussion. I downloaded the image over a 28.8K modem. If you have access to the FTP logs, the duration of the connection times could be digested to see the connection speed for each download request for the file. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol"__sF")
Makoto Matsushita wrote: > tlambert2> fetch -o - URL | gunzip > unzipped_image > > You fully forgot that all users use FreeBSD. I can tell you how to do the same thing in Windows, using "helper" applications with Netscape (winzip), if you need it. The FTP command I gave works on Linux, AIX, Solaris, MacOS X, etc., without requiring intermediate storage space. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 12:45:41PM +0900, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > carl> 3.4 hours is a lot of time on a dial-up connection (granted it > carl> is not a one size fits all period of time). > > You forget that you still compressed image with about 30 hours (at > least, full 1 day or more), and it is not helpful for ordinal users, > not you. I fail to see how a reduction of hours (even just one) is insignificant to someone on a dial-up connection. Time is money for some people; even a meager three hours. > Again, reducing hours/percentages with compressed image doesn't > matter; please focus total download time which is actually needed for > all users. Missing the point is not helpful for the discussion. Again, I fail to see how a reduction in download time for -anyone- is insignificant. Can you explain how I am missing the point? I think it would be better to focus on whether or not the snapshot machine can even handle such a task, and, more importantly, whether the administrator even wants to do it. I e-mailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the task. If that is you I hope you'll forward your response to the freebsd-current list. -- Carl Schmidt [Random Quote] Be careful of reading health books, you might die of a misprint. -- Mark Twain To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
* De: Makoto Matsushita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-13 ] [ Subjecte: Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF") ] > > carl> 3.4 hours is a lot of time on a dial-up connection (granted it > carl> is not a one size fits all period of time). > > You forget that you still compressed image with about 30 hours (at > least, full 1 day or more), and it is not helpful for ordinal users, > not you. > > Again, reducing hours/percentages with compressed image doesn't > matter; please focus total download time which is actually needed for > all users. Missing the point is not helpful for the discussion. I've done recent FreeBSD installs over 14.4k modems. The trick is to do a network install over ppp. If one needs to do multiple local installs, then bootstrapping one box this way is best, then slowly pull things over cvsup(1), and build one release locally. Less error- prone to do things this way. -- Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | FreeBSD: The Power To Serve Will break world for fulltime employment. | finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.FreeBSD.org/~jmallett/ | Support my FreeBSD hacking! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 10:40:20PM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 11:29:32PM -0400, Carl Schmidt wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 11:43:20AM +0900, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > > > tlambert2> That's 3.4 hours saved on a 28.8K modem download time, > > > tlambert2> overall... a 14% reduction in size. > > > > > > The percentage doesn't matter. If ISO image is compressed, user who > > > downloads the image may de-compress that image to burn (I don't know > > > any about the burner softwares which support compressed ISO image). > > > What's happen if there is no space to make de-compressed image on a HDD? > > > > I do not follow this. If the user can not fit a non-compressed image > > on their drive then they certainly will not be downloading a non- > > compressed image nor a compressed image hence rendering this whole > > discussion moot for that user...it seems so to me at least. Maybe I am > > not seeing something? > > The temporary space required to do the decompression is what I am > assuming is being reference, although I'm not sure how accurate that > argument is. I did a little test to see how that works. If you gzip a file and gunzip it and follow the sizes of each file it seems that the file being de-compressed decreases in size while the new file increases in size. I think it is safe to say that gzip does not require temporary space, except an extra inode for de-compression. I could be wrong though. > > Whether we think the size is too large for dial-up or not people will > > still download it. And 200MB is absolutely nothing compared to what > > people put up with for full-size distribution ISOs. You could argue > > that not everyone has gzip (I would assume primarily a Windows user). > > As far as I know there is a DOS version of gzip. This would be where > > you might need both types of images (compressed and not compressed), > > and that is something up to the snapshots people. > > Winzip supports tar and gz, winrar supports bzip2 > > > One might argue that Mr. Lambert is simply speculating that anyone has > > a 28.8k connection anymore. What are the odds that everyone fits this: > > > > a: they live close enough to a provider to get broadband (see 'b'), > > I did not think distance was a requirement for cable modem, but I do > agree with your logic that not everyone has broadband. The distance argument is probably not relevant. I remember a long time ago some person from the UK complaining about having to use ISDN because NTL did not provide cable at that distance, or something. I honestly do not know about that. >From Qwest: <<
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol"__sF")
carl> 3.4 hours is a lot of time on a dial-up connection (granted it carl> is not a one size fits all period of time). You forget that you still compressed image with about 30 hours (at least, full 1 day or more), and it is not helpful for ordinal users, not you. Again, reducing hours/percentages with compressed image doesn't matter; please focus total download time which is actually needed for all users. Missing the point is not helpful for the discussion. -- - Makoto `MAR' Matsushita To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol"__sF")
tlambert2> fetch -o - URL | gunzip > unzipped_image You fully forgot that all users use FreeBSD. -- - Makoto `MAR' Matsushita To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 11:29:32PM -0400, Carl Schmidt wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 11:43:20AM +0900, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > > tlambert2> That's 3.4 hours saved on a 28.8K modem download time, > > tlambert2> overall... a 14% reduction in size. > > > > The percentage doesn't matter. If ISO image is compressed, user who > > downloads the image may de-compress that image to burn (I don't know > > any about the burner softwares which support compressed ISO image). > > What's happen if there is no space to make de-compressed image on a HDD? > > I do not follow this. If the user can not fit a non-compressed image > on their drive then they certainly will not be downloading a non- > compressed image nor a compressed image hence rendering this whole > discussion moot for that user...it seems so to me at least. Maybe I am > not seeing something? The temporary space required to do the decompression is what I am assuming is being reference, although I'm not sure how accurate that argument is. > Whether we think the size is too large for dial-up or not people will > still download it. And 200MB is absolutely nothing compared to what > people put up with for full-size distribution ISOs. You could argue > that not everyone has gzip (I would assume primarily a Windows user). > As far as I know there is a DOS version of gzip. This would be where > you might need both types of images (compressed and not compressed), > and that is something up to the snapshots people. Winzip supports tar and gz, winrar supports bzip2 > One might argue that Mr. Lambert is simply speculating that anyone has > a 28.8k connection anymore. What are the odds that everyone fits this: > > a: they live close enough to a provider to get broadband (see 'b'), I did not think distance was a requirement for cable modem, but I do agree with your logic that not everyone has broadband. -- David W. Chapman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 11:43:20AM +0900, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > tlambert2> That's 3.4 hours saved on a 28.8K modem download time, > tlambert2> overall... a 14% reduction in size. > > The percentage doesn't matter. If ISO image is compressed, user who > downloads the image may de-compress that image to burn (I don't know > any about the burner softwares which support compressed ISO image). > What's happen if there is no space to make de-compressed image on a HDD? I do not follow this. If the user can not fit a non-compressed image on their drive then they certainly will not be downloading a non- compressed image nor a compressed image hence rendering this whole discussion moot for that user...it seems so to me at least. Maybe I am not seeing something? 3.4 hours is a lot of time on a dial-up connection (granted it is not a one size fits all period of time). > Also, the image size is still over 200MB; it is too large to fetch via > 28.8k link IMHO (saving 3.4hours doesn't help either). There are lots > of broadband connection services we can temporary buy (at airport, > starbucks, etc), so why not use it for large file downloads :-) I disagree with the first sentence; see my reply above. I simply disagree that 3.4 hours is not helpful. Whether we think the size is too large for dial-up or not people will still download it. And 200MB is absolutely nothing compared to what people put up with for full-size distribution ISOs. You could argue that not everyone has gzip (I would assume primarily a Windows user). As far as I know there is a DOS version of gzip. This would be where you might need both types of images (compressed and not compressed), and that is something up to the snapshots people. One might argue that Mr. Lambert is simply speculating that anyone has a 28.8k connection anymore. What are the odds that everyone fits this: a: they live close enough to a provider to get broadband (see 'b'), b: they can afford broadband, c: they live close enough to a Starbucks and/or airport, and d: is going to put out that kind of effort to do a-c when they can just as well hope that the snapshot server(s) have the space and power to compress an image so that they can stay in the comfort of their home with their 28.8k Internet connection? I think more than maybe is accounted for. I liken it to simply forgetting about the "others"...sort of like for a long time the blind, deaf, et cetera were left out of most people's thoughts when it came to accessibility (whether that is with computers or physical access to something). I think the FTP installation should be just fine for people with a dial-up connection if they really really really want to have -CURRENT. I've used it a few times for getting snapshots with no harm done. If the snapshot server(s) are not up to task then all of this is useless discussion. Someone ``in the know'' should simply get up and say "hey, our servers can not handle this; end of story" instead of speculating. No one has said that yet that I am aware of. As you might be able to tell I have no idea who actually runs the snapshot server(s) nor am I aware of how many, if there are more than one, there are. Sorry. Of course that's all just my opinion; I could be wrong. -- Carl Schmidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol"__sF")
Makoto Matsushita wrote: > tlambert2> That's 3.4 hours saved on a 28.8K modem download time, > tlambert2> overall... a 14% reduction in size. > > The percentage doesn't matter. If ISO image is compressed, user who > downloads the image may de-compress that image to burn (I don't know > any about the burner softwares which support compressed ISO image). > What's happen if there is no space to make de-compressed image on a HDD? fetch -o - URL | gunzip > unzipped_image or ftp> get filename |"gunzip > unzipped_image" > Also, the image size is still over 200MB; it is too large to fetch via > 28.8k link IMHO (saving 3.4hours doesn't help either). There are lots > of broadband connection services we can temporary buy (at airport, > starbucks, etc), so why not use it for large file downloads :-) I'm not really worried about the people who have access to such links, or who "wouldn't do it anyway"; they aren't the target market -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol"__sF")
tlambert2> That's 3.4 hours saved on a 28.8K modem download time, tlambert2> overall... a 14% reduction in size. The percentage doesn't matter. If ISO image is compressed, user who downloads the image may de-compress that image to burn (I don't know any about the burner softwares which support compressed ISO image). What's happen if there is no space to make de-compressed image on a HDD? Also, the image size is still over 200MB; it is too large to fetch via 28.8k link IMHO (saving 3.4hours doesn't help either). There are lots of broadband connection services we can temporary buy (at airport, starbucks, etc), so why not use it for large file downloads :-) -- - Makoto `MAR' Matsushita To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > Compression gets rid of about 36MB. > > How long did that take to compress though? 2 minutes on a P3-800 with 128M of RAM and one IDE disk. Doesn't matter, because all it really adds is latency. > What load did the machine that did the compression have? Currently, > the snapshots.jp.freebsd.org machines build releases every 24 hours > which last 4-9 hours. I'm not sure if the same machines could spare > some cycles to compress the ISO images, or the disk space to store > almost duplicate copies of the same ISO images twice (compressed, and > uncompressed). The best people to ask about things like these are > the jp.freebsd.org admins and not a local compression program imho. The space argument may be valid; though, in that case, you'd expect that compressed images would be the only images that would be there. 8-). > > I think the correct answer is maybe "because the FAQ maintainers > > have broadband connections"... > > No we don't. My "ultrafast" connection is in fact a 28.8 Kbit/sec > dialup connection. This is why I don't download entire ISO images, > but instead do FTP-installs. So, there you go ;) It's *incredibly* hard to get a -current machine initially installed from sources corectly. It's easier to use the ISO's, even if they take a very long time to download. It's either that, or don't start following -current. > Not very irrelevant, as it might seem at first. Because I'm not > talking about the FTP server that delivers the files, but about the > server that 'builds the snapshots'. > > The donations list of freebsd.org lists requests for better, faster > release building machines for the Japan cluster. If you really think > that you can help, I'd be glad to be proven wrong by a generous > donation to the guys who have saved my -current installation at home a > dozen times with their snapshots. 3.5 hours worth of additional FTP downloading time per download, vs. two minutes of compression time... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
Matthew Dillon wrote: > :% ls -l > :248643584 Sep 17 00:03 5.0-CURRENT-20020917-JPSNAP.iso > :212988130 Oct 13 10:39 5.0-CURRENT-20020917-JPSNAP.iso.gz > : > :Compression gets rid of about 36MB. > : > :That's 3.4 hours saved on a 28.8K modem download time, overall... > :a 14% reduction in size. > > Well, ok, but on a percentage basis you don't get much out of it. > If someone is downloading via a modem they're probably doing it > overnight anyway. And that's OK, because we all live in countries that don't charge time or message units for phone calls, right? 8-) 8-). > bzip2 does even worse then gz in this instance, so no magic > there either. Bzip sucks. It was invented to get out from under a patent that is now expired. > -rw-r--r-- 1 dillon wheel 179985801 Oct 13 15:00 bzip2.bz2 (bzip2 -9) > -rw-r--r-- 1 dillon wheel 178963831 Oct 13 14:56 gzip9.gz(gzip -9) > -rw-r--r-- 1 dillon wheel 187006976 Jun 8 00:04 miniinst-RC4-8Jun2002.iso The gzip number I gave was for the default (-6), not -9. The -9 only dropped 600K more out; every little bit helps, though. I gave the default number to make it repeatable, and to give a valid baseline vs. all the compressed data, which was uncompressible because it was otself "-6". A lot of things in the less minimal distributions are more compressible. The ISO for the "live FS image" is *immensely* compressible. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On 2002-10-13 14:49, Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > That's a commonly asked question, and a very good answer is in the FAQ :P > > There are good reasons why the overworked snapshot servers do not > > attempt to compress the ISO images, which btw contain mostly .tgz files. > > Alternately, instead of believing someone's opinion, we could ask > the data in question: > > % ls -l > 248643584 Sep 17 00:03 5.0-CURRENT-20020917-JPSNAP.iso > 212988130 Oct 13 10:39 5.0-CURRENT-20020917-JPSNAP.iso.gz > > Compression gets rid of about 36MB. How long did that take to compress though? What load did the machine that did the compression have? Currently, the snapshots.jp.freebsd.org machines build releases every 24 hours which last 4-9 hours. I'm not sure if the same machines could spare some cycles to compress the ISO images, or the disk space to store almost duplicate copies of the same ISO images twice (compressed, and uncompressed). The best people to ask about things like these are the jp.freebsd.org admins and not a local compression program imho. > That's 3.4 hours saved on a 28.8K modem download time, overall... > a 14% reduction in size. > > I guess it's no wonder it's a frequently asked question. Too bad > it's not answered correctly in the FAQ. > > I think the correct answer is maybe "because the FAQ maintainers > have broadband connections"... No we don't. My "ultrafast" connection is in fact a 28.8 Kbit/sec dialup connection. This is why I don't download entire ISO images, but instead do FTP-installs. So, there you go ;) > PS: If the server is overworked, all you need to do is store the > compressed version of the image on the server; I have no idea why > you seem to believe that it needs to be compressed more than once, > so whether or not the server is "overworked" is irrelevent to the > compression, I think. Not very irrelevant, as it might seem at first. Because I'm not talking about the FTP server that delivers the files, but about the server that 'builds the snapshots'. The donations list of freebsd.org lists requests for better, faster release building machines for the Japan cluster. If you really think that you can help, I'd be glad to be proven wrong by a generous donation to the guys who have saved my -current installation at home a dozen times with their snapshots. - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
:> On 2002-10-13 13:36, Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> > I had upgraded the machine with a snapshot from the Japan snapshot :> > image server; apparently, no one ever thinks of compressiong ISO's, :> > so that was at the limit of what I could download. 8-(. :> > :> > It may be a good idea to put this flag in by default, at least until :> > 5.0-RELEASE, so that it will be there on the snapshots. :> :> That's a commonly asked question, and a very good answer is in the FAQ :P :> There are good reasons why the overworked snapshot servers do not :> attempt to compress the ISO images, which btw contain mostly .tgz files. : :Alternately, instead of believing someone's opinion, we could ask :the data in question: : :% ls -l :248643584 Sep 17 00:03 5.0-CURRENT-20020917-JPSNAP.iso :212988130 Oct 13 10:39 5.0-CURRENT-20020917-JPSNAP.iso.gz : :Compression gets rid of about 36MB. : :That's 3.4 hours saved on a 28.8K modem download time, overall... :a 14% reduction in size. Well, ok, but on a percentage basis you don't get much out of it. If someone is downloading via a modem they're probably doing it overnight anyway. bzip2 does even worse then gz in this instance, so no magic there either. -rw-r--r-- 1 dillon wheel 179985801 Oct 13 15:00 bzip2.bz2 (bzip2 -9) -rw-r--r-- 1 dillon wheel 178963831 Oct 13 14:56 gzip9.gz(gzip -9) -rw-r--r-- 1 dillon wheel 187006976 Jun 8 00:04 miniinst-RC4-8Jun2002.iso -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-10-13 13:36, Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I had upgraded the machine with a snapshot from the Japan snapshot > > image server; apparently, no one ever thinks of compressiong ISO's, > > so that was at the limit of what I could download. 8-(. > > > > It may be a good idea to put this flag in by default, at least until > > 5.0-RELEASE, so that it will be there on the snapshots. > > That's a commonly asked question, and a very good answer is in the FAQ :P > There are good reasons why the overworked snapshot servers do not > attempt to compress the ISO images, which btw contain mostly .tgz files. Alternately, instead of believing someone's opinion, we could ask the data in question: % ls -l 248643584 Sep 17 00:03 5.0-CURRENT-20020917-JPSNAP.iso 212988130 Oct 13 10:39 5.0-CURRENT-20020917-JPSNAP.iso.gz Compression gets rid of about 36MB. That's 3.4 hours saved on a 28.8K modem download time, overall... a 14% reduction in size. I guess it's no wonder it's a frequently asked question. Too bad it's not answered correctly in the FAQ. I think the correct answer is maybe "because the FAQ maintainers have broadband connections"... PS: If the server is overworked, all you need to do is store the compressed version of the image on the server; I have no idea why you seem to believe that it needs to be compressed more than once, so whether or not the server is "overworked" is irrelevent to the compression, I think. PPS: If the server is overworked, think what reducing the number of bytes per download by 14% would do for it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On 2002-10-13 13:36, Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had upgraded the machine with a snapshot from the Japan snapshot > image server; apparently, no one ever thinks of compressiong ISO's, > so that was at the limit of what I could download. 8-(. > > It may be a good idea to put this flag in by default, at least until > 5.0-RELEASE, so that it will be there on the snapshots. That's a commonly asked question, and a very good answer is in the FAQ :P There are good reasons why the overworked snapshot servers do not attempt to compress the ISO images, which btw contain mostly .tgz files. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
Peter Wemm wrote: > Add COMPAT4X=true to your make.conf. We added __stdoutp etc to RELENG_4 > and included it in the last two releases. -current's COMPAT4X stuff > has the updated libc.so.4 with these symbols. > > If you want to run 4.x binaries, you need COMPAT4X=true so that we can > update the 4.x compatability libraries over time. I guess if I just rebuild from CVS source with this flag set, you're saying I'll be all right? Thanks for the info... I'll give it a try. I had upgraded the machine with a snapshot from the Japan snapshot image server; apparently, no one ever thinks of compressiong ISO's, so that was at the limit of what I could download. 8-(. It may be a good idea to put this flag in by default, at least until 5.0-RELEASE, so that it will be there on the snapshots. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
Terry Lambert wrote: > Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:27:27AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > If you can't deal with having to recompile things over the -current > > > > development cycle then don't run it. > > > > > > Uh, the issue was the upcoming 5.0 release, which will cause these > > > same problems for people. > > > > As Kris already mentioned in the unquoted part of his original email, > > this does not affect RELENG_4 binaries. > > As I mentioned, it does for 4.6-RELEASE binaries: > > % resize > /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5: \ > Undefined symbol "__stdoutp" > > ...are people going to be upgrading to 5.0-RELEASE from RELENG4, > or are they going to be upgrading from 4.6-RELEASE and 4.7-RELEASE? Add COMPAT4X=true to your make.conf. We added __stdoutp etc to RELENG_4 and included it in the last two releases. -current's COMPAT4X stuff has the updated libc.so.4 with these symbols. If you want to run 4.x binaries, you need COMPAT4X=true so that we can update the 4.x compatability libraries over time. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:27:27AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > If you can't deal with having to recompile things over the -current > > > development cycle then don't run it. > > > > Uh, the issue was the upcoming 5.0 release, which will cause these > > same problems for people. > > As Kris already mentioned in the unquoted part of his original email, > this does not affect RELENG_4 binaries. As I mentioned, it does for 4.6-RELEASE binaries: % resize /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5: \ Undefined symbol "__stdoutp" ...are people going to be upgrading to 5.0-RELEASE from RELENG4, or are they going to be upgrading from 4.6-RELEASE and 4.7-RELEASE? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 01:38:12AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 10:22:48AM +0200, Hellmuth Michaelis wrote: > > >=20 > > > Had a very bad night after upgrading my main machine from a September-b= > ased > > > current to a -current as of yesterday, for many, many of the programs > > > running on that machine i got an error message like > >=20 > > Peter removed the stdio transitional aid for older -current systems. > > This means that older 5.0 libraries are no longer compatible with the > > new 5.0 libc, and you will need to recompile everything that depends > > on them. 4.x applications (i.e. things that link with libc.so.4) > > should be unaffected. > >=20 > > This is a required change for 5.0-RELEASE. > >=20 > > Doing a 'make world' followed by 'portupgrade -a -f' should be > > sufficient to rebuild everything correctly. Alternatively, I'll have > > new packages built in a few days, and you could just reinstall your > > packages with those. > > Actually, this should only be required for old ports (older than some > date which I don't know off-hand). It might be easier to just rebuild > everything though. Anything older than August 13th, 2001. It also appears that gcc has been miscompiling some binaries if you have got /usr/lib/libgcc.so* present. I've seen one report where an ancient 3.x libgcc.so was hanging around and was being used by the -current gcc compiler with -current binaries. Not Good. Here's what I do personally: make buildworld rm -rf /usr/include.old mv /usr/include /usr/include.old chflags -R noschg /usr/lib [mkdir /usr/lib/old] mv /usr/lib/lib*.so.* /usr/lib/compat mv /usr/lib/*.o /usr/lib/lib*.a /usr/lib/lib*.so /usr/lib/old make installworld This guarantees a clean /usr/include and /usr/lib after finishing. Dynamic binaries keep running because they find their libraries in /usr/lib/compat. But ld(1) will not find them there for *new* binaries. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 03:32:14PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:27:27AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:01:53AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > Actually, this should only be required for old ports (older than some > > > > > date which I don't know off-hand). It might be easier to just rebuild > > > > > everything though. > > > > > > > > This would be OK, if the X11 package came from the FreeBSD source > > > > tree, instead of just as a binary on the CDROM (I hate that upgrading > > > > a box breaks things... it should *never* break things, as long as you > > > > don't tell it to remove old libraries). > > > > > > If you can't deal with having to recompile things over the -current > > > development cycle then don't run it. > > > > > > Uh, the issue was the upcoming 5.0 release, which will cause these > > same problems for people. > > > As Kris already mentioned in the unquoted part of his original email, > this does not affect RELENG_4 binaries. > Yes, it can. See yesterday's thread "Revision 1.48 of stdio.h breaks 3rd party software." Luckily, Peter helps me find a work-around. -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:27:27AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:01:53AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > Actually, this should only be required for old ports (older than some > > > > date which I don't know off-hand). It might be easier to just rebuild > > > > everything though. > > > > > > This would be OK, if the X11 package came from the FreeBSD source > > > tree, instead of just as a binary on the CDROM (I hate that upgrading > > > a box breaks things... it should *never* break things, as long as you > > > don't tell it to remove old libraries). > > > > If you can't deal with having to recompile things over the -current > > development cycle then don't run it. > > > Uh, the issue was the upcoming 5.0 release, which will cause these > same problems for people. > As Kris already mentioned in the unquoted part of his original email, this does not affect RELENG_4 binaries. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age msg45306/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:01:53AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > Actually, this should only be required for old ports (older than some > > > date which I don't know off-hand). It might be easier to just rebuild > > > everything though. > > > > This would be OK, if the X11 package came from the FreeBSD source > > tree, instead of just as a binary on the CDROM (I hate that upgrading > > a box breaks things... it should *never* break things, as long as you > > don't tell it to remove old libraries). > > If you can't deal with having to recompile things over the -current > development cycle then don't run it. Uh, the issue was the upcoming 5.0 release, which will cause these same problems for people. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 04:01:53AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > Actually, this should only be required for old ports (older than some > > date which I don't know off-hand). It might be easier to just rebuild > > everything though. > > This would be OK, if the X11 package came from the FreeBSD source > tree, instead of just as a binary on the CDROM (I hate that upgrading > a box breaks things... it should *never* break things, as long as you > don't tell it to remove old libraries). If you can't deal with having to recompile things over the -current development cycle then don't run it. Kris msg45302/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > Actually, this should only be required for old ports (older than some > > date which I don't know off-hand). It might be easier to just rebuild > > everything though. > > This would be OK, if the X11 package came from the FreeBSD source > tree, instead of just as a binary on the CDROM (I hate that upgrading > a box breaks things... it should *never* break things, as long as you > don't tell it to remove old libraries). Not to mention it's easier said than done to recompile all packages since I have a hard enough time trying to figure out and keep track of all ports than have been updated or has changes committed. It would be easy if it was a dozen packages or the entire ports collection but if it's only 1,000 packages, recompiling them will take forever assuming you ever know which packages are installed. Cheers, Vince - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Vice President __ Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[__ ] WurldLink Corporation / / / / | / | __] ] San Francisco - Honolulu - Hong Kong / / / / / |/ / | __] ] HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[] Almighty1@IRC - oahu.DAL.NET Hawaii's DALnet IRC Network Server Admin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
Kris Kennaway wrote: > Actually, this should only be required for old ports (older than some > date which I don't know off-hand). It might be easier to just rebuild > everything though. This would be OK, if the X11 package came from the FreeBSD source tree, instead of just as a binary on the CDROM (I hate that upgrading a box breaks things... it should *never* break things, as long as you don't tell it to remove old libraries). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: Old port recompiles needed (Re: Unknown symbol "__sF")
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 01:38:12AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 10:22:48AM +0200, Hellmuth Michaelis wrote: > > > > Had a very bad night after upgrading my main machine from a September-based > > current to a -current as of yesterday, for many, many of the programs > > running on that machine i got an error message like > > Peter removed the stdio transitional aid for older -current systems. > This means that older 5.0 libraries are no longer compatible with the > new 5.0 libc, and you will need to recompile everything that depends > on them. 4.x applications (i.e. things that link with libc.so.4) > should be unaffected. > > This is a required change for 5.0-RELEASE. > > Doing a 'make world' followed by 'portupgrade -a -f' should be > sufficient to rebuild everything correctly. Alternatively, I'll have > new packages built in a few days, and you could just reinstall your > packages with those. Actually, this should only be required for old ports (older than some date which I don't know off-hand). It might be easier to just rebuild everything though. Kris msg45295/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
