7-zip or bzip2 packages

connexion2000 · 2008-12-20 22:53:09

Hi!
I thought today, that maybe arch should start transitting to 7-zip or bzip2 packages. These formats uses less space, so our repos would be smaller as well as we would use less bandwitch.

What do you think?

neotuli · 2008-12-20 23:09:08

I think it's been discussed a zillion times. That's what I think.

pointone · 2008-12-21 15:56:02

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman wrote:

Pacman is written in the C programming language, so it is fast, light, and very agile. It uses the .tar.gz package format, which further enhances its speed; Gzipped tarballs, though slightly larger, are decompressed much faster than their Bzipped counterparts, and are therefore generally installed more expediently.

VPeric · 2008-12-21 19:40:05

On the other hand, smaller size = less bandwidth, and bandwidth is (usually) more expensive than processor power. Plus, what if the gains from faster unzipping are smaller than the losses from longer downloading?

But yeah, I'm sure the issue has been discussed a lot, and whatever I say wouldn't change anyone's mind.

(On the other hand, what Pacman really needs is the UseDelta option to work, because it'd save loads of time/bandwidth)

Army · 2008-12-21 19:54:31

Here i.e. Openoffice is downloaded much faster than it is unpacked! So all in all it will be a slower process.

Xyne · 2008-12-21 21:13:40

VPeric wrote:

the losses from longer downloading?

Use powerpill and those losses become insignificant if they aren't already.

Last edited by Xyne (2008-12-30 01:47:25)

Mr.Elendig · 2008-12-21 21:28:37

It has been tested before, bzip2 made the whole dowload + update process a lot slower. I vaugly remembere that someone did a test with lzma, but I can't remember the result of it.

dolby · 2008-12-21 22:02:34

gzip is better than all. space is not the only variable. space is very cheap, and so is bandwidth. time is more valuable than both. so is performance.

connexion2000 · 2008-12-21 23:33:43

VPeric wrote:

On the other hand, smaller size = less bandwidth, and bandwidth is (usually) more expensive than processor power. Plus, what if the gains from faster unzipping are smaller than the losses from longer downloading?
But yeah, I'm sure the issue has been discussed a lot, and whatever I say wouldn't change anyone's mind.
(On the other hand, what Pacman really needs is the UseDelta option to work, because it'd save loads of time/bandwidth)

Ok, I understand purposes of using gzip packages. It depends on who values what, Some value bandwitch, other the speed of installation.

As it comes to UseDelta: please I don't trust such options. I would vote for bailiging this option. It would produce more bad then good.

SamC · 2008-12-21 23:38:23

connexion2000 wrote:

VPeric wrote:
On the other hand, smaller size = less bandwidth, and bandwidth is (usually) more expensive than processor power. Plus, what if the gains from faster unzipping are smaller than the losses from longer downloading?
But yeah, I'm sure the issue has been discussed a lot, and whatever I say wouldn't change anyone's mind.
(On the other hand, what Pacman really needs is the UseDelta option to work, because it'd save loads of time/bandwidth)
Ok, I understand purposes of using gzip packages. It depends on who values what, Some value bandwitch, other the speed of installation.
As it comes to UseDelta: please I don't trust such options. I would vote for bailiging this option. It would produce more bad then good.

What's so bad about UseDelta?

Allan · 2008-12-22 00:51:03

connexion2000 wrote:

VPeric wrote:
(On the other hand, what Pacman really needs is the UseDelta option to work, because it'd save loads of time/bandwidth)
As it comes to UseDelta: please I don't trust such options. I would vote for bailiging this option. It would produce more bad then good.

It is an option so when it get fully functional you don't have to use it.

Ranguvar · 2008-12-22 02:00:42

LZMA (aka 7-Zip) is basically a faster bzip2 (practically, not algorithm-wise), so bzip2 is out in comparison. gzip vs LZMA, I prefer LZMA even though I have an Arch-hosting university a few miles away. For me, bottlenecking my internet is easier and more annoying than doing the same to my CPU/HDD.

But it's really not a big deal at the end of the day.

Last edited by Ranguvar (2008-12-22 02:01:04)

Wintervenom · 2008-12-22 02:17:12

What about all those that either are stuck with dial-up or in a place where decent broadband either does not exist (is slow) or too expensive?
Or those behind school/public networks that throttle bandwidth (the college I go to, for example, throttles down to dial-up speed -- funny thing is, they don't throttle things like BitTorrent if it's encrypted and there are many seeds).

Last edited by Wintervenom (2008-12-22 02:20:21)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-12-20 22:53:09

7-zip or bzip2 packages

#2 2008-12-20 23:09:08

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#3 2008-12-21 15:56:02

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#4 2008-12-21 19:40:05

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#5 2008-12-21 19:54:31

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#6 2008-12-21 21:13:40

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#7 2008-12-21 21:28:37

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#8 2008-12-21 22:02:34

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#9 2008-12-21 23:33:43

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#10 2008-12-21 23:38:23

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#11 2008-12-22 00:51:03

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#12 2008-12-22 02:00:42

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

#13 2008-12-22 02:17:12

Re: 7-zip or bzip2 packages

Board footer