Matt Heckaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in list.freebsd-current:
> Speaking of ISOs, where is the 4.0-RELEASE ISO,
It doesn't exist yet. If I understood Jordan correctly, he
wants to wait a bit after the release and let the dust settle
a bit before creating the CD-ROM set for Walnut Creek.
How
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 11:42:43AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> No it doesn't.
>
> Download the binary installation files onto another machine, and burn a CD
> with them (you must have a mechanism to burn a CD if you were intending to
> burn an ISO image of one). Then use this CD as the media t
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Will Andrews wrote:
> Exactly. Only thing is, an FTP install requires a usable internet
> connection on intended box, which is not always available. ;-)
No it doesn't.
Download the binary installation files onto another machine, and burn a CD
with them (you must have a mech
At 10:12 AM 3/17/00 -0500, Will Andrews wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Kelly Yancey wrote:
> > This is all beginning to smell a lot like a FTP install.
>
>Exactly. Only thing is, an FTP install requires a usable internet
>connection on intended box, which is not always availab
At 09:46 AM 3/17/00 -0500, Will Andrews wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 11:59:29AM -0600, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote:
> > However, if you consider the size of the file and the possibility of
> > corruption, then it should be archived with gzip and forget the
> compression
> > (gzip -1). Now it can
At 9:46 AM -0500 2000/3/17, Will Andrews wrote:
> I tend to agree with this. 650MB is way too much - perhaps the images could
> be broken up according to the portion of the system (i.e., bin, sbin,
> usr.bin, usr.sbin, etc, et cetera).
I think the entire point of the ISO images is to
> Had
> the file been split and a checksum computed for each piece, I could have
> grabbed only the affected portion of the ISO.
This is screaming for an FTP server mod similar to the wuftpd code that will
automatically run tar|gzip. That is, given a file "foo", serve "foo.aa" to be
the first (s
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Kelly Yancey wrote:
> This is all beginning to smell a lot like a FTP install.
Exactly. Only thing is, an FTP install requires a usable internet
connection on intended box, which is not always available. ;-)
--
Will Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GCS/E/S
>
> I tend to agree with this. 650MB is way too much - perhaps the images could
> be broken up according to the portion of the system (i.e., bin, sbin,
> usr.bin, usr.sbin, etc, et cetera).
>
This is all beginning to smell a lot like a FTP install.
Kelly
--
Kelly Yancey - [EMAIL PROTECT
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 11:59:29AM -0600, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote:
> However, if you consider the size of the file and the possibility of
> corruption, then it should be archived with gzip and forget the compression
> (gzip -1). Now it can be checked for errors.
MD5 checksums are more compact
Out of the ether, James FitzGibbon spewed forth the following bits:
> It might be nice if there were a utility that could pull the ISO in small
> slices just like any distribution and then put it back together. For that
> matter, couldn't the ISO image be made into a distribution that sysinstall
* Jeffrey J. Mountin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000315 17:35]:
> However, if you consider the size of the file and the possibility of
> corruption, then it should be archived with gzip and forget the compression
> (gzip -1). Now it can be checked for errors.
Isn't there a CHECKSUMS.MD5 file in the
[...]
> > Another issue is the size. Many factors determine how quickly one can
> > obtain the ISO. It would be nice if it were broken into smaller
> > volumes. About 10-20 MB each would be good. That way should something
> > fail, there less time and bandwidth wasted should one need to sta
Mar 2000, Matthew Hunt wrote:
: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:24:42 -0500
: From: Matthew Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: To: Jeffrey J. Mountin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Re: Why not gzip iso images?
:
: On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 01:12:39PM -0600, Jeffrey J. M
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 01:12:39PM -0600, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote:
> >Also take into account that many people are downloading and
> >recoding the images on Windows boxes, which don't have gzip
> >by default.
>
> And then they can xfer it over to their FBSD system, etc..
You're suggesting that
At 11:09 PM 3/15/00 +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>That's true. Most of the files in the ISO images are already
>compressed, so trying to gzip it saves only a few percent.
>
>Also take into account that many people are downloading and
>recoding the images on Windows boxes, which don't have gzip
>by
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:11:48PM -0800, Darryl Okahata wrote:
> While you are right about the download/gunzip times, compression
> doesn't help that much. As has been mentioned in -hackers, the ISO
> images only compress by 3% or so, or around ~20MB. So, instead of a
> 640MB ISO image, yo
> But for the ISO images... IS it a problem to gzip
> them
> They take less space on the master site and the mirror
> sites and they take less bandwidth!
Since almost the entire content of the ISO image is already gzipped, the
size savings works out to be a percent or two, or at least did w
On Mar 15, 9:03am, Kris Kennaway wrote:
} Subject: Re: Why not gzip iso images?
} On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
}
} > I feel pretty confident assuming that most people that burn ISOs probably
} > keep enough disk space free to hold one and not much more, going from
| > Alas, that is just not true for many of us who are in bandwidth-poor
| > countries. Over here, it can take 3 to BIGNUM hours to download an ISO
| > image (there aren't any up-to-date local mirrors), depending on time of
| > day and the phase of the moon. I think compression would definitely h
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
> Alas, that is just not true for many of us who are in bandwidth-poor
> countries. Over here, it can take 3 to BIGNUM hours to download an ISO
> image (there aren't any up-to-date local mirrors), depending on time of
> day and the phase of the moon. I
Jeffrey J. Mountin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in list.freebsd-current:
> AFAICR, the one time that a gzip and bzip version were available the size
> was not all that significant and there were promptly removed.
That's true. Most of the files in the ISO images are already
compressed, so trying
Anatoly Vorobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:14:37AM -0500, Matt Heckaman wrote:
> > It's been my experience that gzipping an ISO (or other compression tools)
> > do not make enough different to justify the time it takes to both compress
> > and uncompress these things.
At 05:53 AM 3/15/00 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>* Kai Voigt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000315 05:47] wrote:
> > Matt Heckaman wrote:
> > > It's been my experience that gzipping an ISO (or other compression tools)
> > > do not make enough different to justify the time it takes to both
> compress
> >
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:14:37AM -0500, Matt Heckaman wrote:
> It's been my experience that gzipping an ISO (or other compression tools)
> do not make enough different to justify the time it takes to both compress
> and uncompress these things. For example, the time needed to un-gzip the
> ISO c
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> I feel pretty confident assuming that most people that burn ISOs probably
> keep enough disk space free to hold one and not much more, going from
> a requirement of ~650MB to ~1.2GB wouldn't be a smart move imo.
fetch -o - ftp://path/to/iso.gz | gun
* Kai Voigt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000315 05:47] wrote:
> Matt Heckaman wrote:
> > It's been my experience that gzipping an ISO (or other compression tools)
> > do not make enough different to justify the time it takes to both compress
> > and uncompress these things. For example, the time needed to
Matt Heckaman wrote:
> It's been my experience that gzipping an ISO (or other compression tools)
> do not make enough different to justify the time it takes to both compress
> and uncompress these things. For example, the time needed to un-gzip the
> ISO could be longer than the time it would take
ROTECTED]>
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Why not gzip iso images?
:
: After reading the announcement...
: Congratulations to the FreeBSD community
: another milestone!
: A great OS...
:
: But for the ISO images... IS it a problem to gzip
: them
: They take less space on the master site and
After reading the announcement...
Congratulations to the FreeBSD community
another milestone!
A great OS...
But for the ISO images... IS it a problem to gzip
them
They take less space on the master site and the mirror
sites and they take less bandwidth!
Shouldn't be a problem I think!
Less
30 matches
Mail list logo
