From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261946AbTJSAvw (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:51:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261950AbTJSAvw (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:51:52 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-210-9-243-127.webone.com.au ([210.9.243.127]:14340 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261946AbTJSAvv (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:51:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3F91E01C.4090507@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:51:40 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Egger CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rob@landley.net Subject: Re: Where's the bzip2 compressed linux-kernel patch? References: <200310180018.21818.rob@landley.net> <3F90CFE5.5000801@cyberone.com.au> <1066477155.5606.34.camel@sonja> In-Reply-To: <1066477155.5606.34.camel@sonja> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Daniel Egger wrote: >Am Sam, den 18.10.2003 schrieb Nick Piggin um 07:30: > > >>This came up on the list a while back. IIRC the conclusion was that >>runtime memory usage and speed, and not so significant compression >>improvement over gzip. >> > >I quick test with a PowerPC kernel and the normal vmlinux image reveals >that this is nonsense. > >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2766490 2003-09-27 22:29 vmlinux >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1149410 2003-09-27 22:29 vmlinux.gz >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1062999 2003-09-27 22:29 vmlinux.bz2 > >This is a 86411 bytes or 8.1% reduction, seems significant to me... > Sure, it might be worth it in some cases. I didn't mean improvement wasn't measurable at all.