[arch-dev-public] GZip compression ratios
Just doing an update, and I noticed this: Targets: coreutils-6.10-1 bash-3.2.033-2 cairo-1.4.14-1 gtk2-2.12.7-1 gcc-libs-4.2.3-3 mpfr-2.3.1-1 gcc-4.2.3-1 mesa-7.0.3rc1-1 acroread-8.1.2-1 automake-1.10.1-2 kernel26-2.6.24-2 catalyst-8.01-3 curl-7.18.0-1 devtools-0.5-1 dhcpcd-3.2.1-1 e2fsprogs-1.40.5-1 faac-1.26-1 filesystem-2007.11-6 fakeroot-1.9.2-1 findutils-4.2.32-1 flex-2.5.33-4 librsvg-2.20.0-1 libxmu-1.0.4-1 gimp-2.4.4-1 git-1.5.4-1 gpgme-1.1.6-1 groff-1.19.2-4 kde-common-3.5.8-3 lm_sensors-3.0.1-1 kdebase-3.5.8-3 lftp-3.6.3-1 libgnomecups-0.2.3-1 libxml2-2.6.31-1 libgnomeprint-2.18.3-1 libgnomeprintui-2.18.2-1 libidl2-0.8.10-1 libmysqlclient-5.0.51-2 libtasn1-1.3-1 libtool-1.5.26-1 lua-5.1.3-1 lvm2-2.02.33-1 man-1.6f-2 man-pages-2.77-1 mysql-clients-5.0.51-3 nasm-2.01-1 orbit2-2.14.12-1 pcre-7.6-2 php-5.2.5-3 pil-1.1.6-4 postgresql-libs-8.3.0-1 sdl_mixer-1.2.8-2 shared-mime-info-0.23-1 snownews-1.5.8-1 spamassassin-3.2.4-2 sqlite3-3.5.5-1 sudo-1.6.9p12-1 tk-8.5.0-2 wget-1.11-1 which-2.19-2 xfsprogs-2.9.5-1 xine-lib-1.1.10-1 xorg-server-1.4.0.90-6 Total Download Size: 194.03 MB Total Installed Size: 194.39 MB Does gzip compression really give us so little as to only save 0.3 MB over uncompressed for so many packages? I figured the difference would be a bit more - does it suck for compressing binary data? Should we consider moving to a different, more compressed archive format? Or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill here? -- Travis
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 12:24:38AM -0500, Travis Willard wrote:
Just doing an update, and I noticed this:
Targets: coreutils-6.10-1 bash-3.2.033-2 cairo-1.4.14-1 gtk2-2.12.7-1 gcc-libs-4.2.3-3 mpfr-2.3.1-1 gcc-4.2.3-1 mesa-7.0.3rc1-1 acroread-8.1.2-1 automake-1.10.1-2 kernel26-2.6.24-2 catalyst-8.01-3 curl-7.18.0-1 devtools-0.5-1 dhcpcd-3.2.1-1 e2fsprogs-1.40.5-1 faac-1.26-1 filesystem-2007.11-6 fakeroot-1.9.2-1 findutils-4.2.32-1 flex-2.5.33-4 librsvg-2.20.0-1 libxmu-1.0.4-1 gimp-2.4.4-1 git-1.5.4-1 gpgme-1.1.6-1 groff-1.19.2-4 kde-common-3.5.8-3 lm_sensors-3.0.1-1 kdebase-3.5.8-3 lftp-3.6.3-1 libgnomecups-0.2.3-1 libxml2-2.6.31-1 libgnomeprint-2.18.3-1 libgnomeprintui-2.18.2-1 libidl2-0.8.10-1 libmysqlclient-5.0.51-2 libtasn1-1.3-1 libtool-1.5.26-1 lua-5.1.3-1 lvm2-2.02.33-1 man-1.6f-2 man-pages-2.77-1 mysql-clients-5.0.51-3 nasm-2.01-1 orbit2-2.14.12-1 pcre-7.6-2 php-5.2.5-3 pil-1.1.6-4 postgresql-libs-8.3.0-1 sdl_mixer-1.2.8-2 shared-mime-info-0.23-1 snownews-1.5.8-1 spamassassin-3.2.4-2 sqlite3-3.5.5-1 sudo-1.6.9p12-1 tk-8.5.0-2 wget-1.11-1 which-2.19-2 xfsprogs-2.9.5-1 xine-lib-1.1.10-1 xorg-server-1.4.0.90-6
Total Download Size: 194.03 MB Total Installed Size: 194.39 MB
Does gzip compression really give us so little as to only save 0.3 MB over uncompressed for so many packages? I figured the difference would be a bit more - does it suck for compressing binary data? Should we consider moving to a different, more compressed archive format? Or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill here?
You know, I always took this number as the extra space the package would take up ie. above and beyond what it's already taking up. I think I got that idea because that's what apt-get tells you. If I try and reinstall postgresql I get this: Targets: postgresql-8.2.6-1 Total Download Size: 0.00 MB Total Installed Size: 4.00 MB But pacman -Qi tells me this: Installed Size : 10154.79 K Either way, things look suspect... Jason
Oops, left the dev list off my original reply. Text is below. On Feb 7, 2008 11:24 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
Just doing an update, and I noticed this:
Targets: coreutils-6.10-1 bash-3.2.033-2 cairo-1.4.14-1 gtk2-2.12.7-1 gcc-libs-4.2.3-3 mpfr-2.3.1-1 gcc-4.2.3-1 mesa-7.0.3rc1-1 acroread-8.1.2-1 automake-1.10.1-2 kernel26-2.6.24-2 catalyst-8.01-3 curl-7.18.0-1 devtools-0.5-1 dhcpcd-3.2.1-1 e2fsprogs-1.40.5-1 faac-1.26-1 filesystem-2007.11-6 fakeroot-1.9.2-1 findutils-4.2.32-1 flex-2.5.33-4 librsvg-2.20.0-1 libxmu-1.0.4-1 gimp-2.4.4-1 git-1.5.4-1 gpgme-1.1.6-1 groff-1.19.2-4 kde-common-3.5.8-3 lm_sensors-3.0.1-1 kdebase-3.5.8-3 lftp-3.6.3-1 libgnomecups-0.2.3-1 libxml2-2.6.31-1 libgnomeprint-2.18.3-1 libgnomeprintui-2.18.2-1 libidl2-0.8.10-1 libmysqlclient-5.0.51-2 libtasn1-1.3-1 libtool-1.5.26-1 lua-5.1.3-1 lvm2-2.02.33-1 man-1.6f-2 man-pages-2.77-1 mysql-clients-5.0.51-3 nasm-2.01-1 orbit2-2.14.12-1 pcre-7.6-2 php-5.2.5-3 pil-1.1.6-4 postgresql-libs-8.3.0-1 sdl_mixer-1.2.8-2 shared-mime-info-0.23-1 snownews-1.5.8-1 spamassassin-3.2.4-2 sqlite3-3.5.5-1 sudo-1.6.9p12-1 tk-8.5.0-2 wget-1.11-1 which-2.19-2 xfsprogs-2.9.5-1 xine-lib-1.1.10-1 xorg-server-1.4.0.90-6
Total Download Size: 194.03 MB Total Installed Size: 194.39 MB
Does gzip compression really give us so little as to only save 0.3 MB over uncompressed for so many packages? I figured the difference would be a bit more - does it suck for compressing binary data? Should we consider moving to a different, more compressed archive format? Or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill here?
No, its a bunch of bullshit. If/when the repo db scripts get rewritten, we would actually have installed sizes available in our PRIMARY repos. Currently the only repo that has them is community, so what you see above is that the installed size of your community packages just happens to be slightly greater than the download size of all of the packages, so installed size is shown. It is a terrible heuristic, see this commit queued for 3.2 for details: http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=93a3050ed9e97... Thus, anything in core or extra will lie to you. -Dan
participants (3)
-
Dan McGee
-
Jason Chu
-
Travis Willard