From: | List Subscriptions <listsub(at)mwwm(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Daniel R(dot) Anderson" <dan(at)mathjunkies(dot)com> |
Cc: | Joel Rodrigues <borgempath(at)Phreaker(dot)net>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL downloads compressed with bzip2 instead of |
Date: | 2003-03-24 03:38:51 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0303232129060.5905-100000@ruby.gem |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
FWIW, the current version of tar uses
-z for gzip compression
-j for bzip2 compression
There is no need to specifically un{b}zip tars as the effective processes
are
tar -xjf xyz --becomes--> bunzip2 < xyz | tar -xf -
tar -xjf xyz ... --becomes--> tar -cf - ... | bzip2 > xyz
The primary advantage to providing the archive in bzip2 (instead of gzip)
format is the reduction of download time; saving storage space is a much
less significant issue.
Whether or not you save space with the archive is a separate issue, IMO
fairly insignificant given the difficulty in finding a new drive UNDER
40GB.
(Said by someone who just installed a 7.3.2 demo on a 16MB P-90 laptop
running RH70)
On 23 Mar 2003, Daniel R. Anderson wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I wasn't suggesting that an untarred, decompressed bzip2 archive would
> need less space then a compressed one; I was simply pointing out that if
> you're downloading it to install you need so much disk space. AND, if I
> remember correctly bunzip2 -- like when you gunzip a *.gz -- removes the
> extension.[0] So you'd have to recompress the tar file /anyways/ --
> thus making it a negligible savings.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-03-24 03:58:45 | Re: FW: [NOVICE] From a real novice |
Previous Message | Joel Rodrigues | 2003-03-24 03:37:24 | Re: PostgreSQL downloads compressed with bzip2 instead of |