On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 09:49:53PM -0700, Tom Spindler (moof) wrote: > Maybe if xz were cranked down to -2 or -3 it'd be better at not > that much of a compression loss, or it defaulted to the higher > compression level only when doing a `build.sh release`.
If I remember the original size tests correctly, that would not give us any (or much) gain (sizewise) from gzip. There was nearly 30% size difference between the suggested default compression and -9 (what we use now). I see two easy options: - move back to gzip for all architectures that do not really need a CD-ROM sized ISO and gzip does not compress good enough (that would make sparc64 the only xz user for now) - provide an easy tunable for local builds where you care more about packing size than result size I am not sure whether the xz compiled in tools supports the "-T threads" option, but if it does, we can add "-T 0" to the default args and see how much that improves things. Jörg, do you know this? Martin
