Using gzip vs. compress for dcc source

Mike Cappella mike@mikecappella.com
Sun Jun 5 23:14:32 UTC 2005


Ah, good.  Glad to hear you'll be switching to bzip2 then!  :-)

As for the multi-part encoding, I'm sure you're aware that was a simple,
don't-post-to-lists-often oversight on my part.  Thanks for the reminder.

-m

-----Original Message-----
From: dcc-admin@rhyolite.com [mailto:dcc-admin@rhyolite.com] On Behalf Of
Vernon Schryver
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 2:11 PM
To: dcc@rhyolite.com
Subject: Re: Using gzip vs. compress for dcc source

> From: <dcc@mikecappella.com>

> I'm sure you've already considered this, but can I suggest using gzip 
> to compress the source archives vs. compress?  The savings are pretty 
> substantial - using compress increases your source file size by about 52%.
>  
> Compress:  1,307,125
> Gzip:             858,653
> --------------------------------
> Difference :     448,472

I think LZW is still a little more portable than gzip, not to mention even
tighter schemes.  For example, bzip2 compresses it to ~600K.


> ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C569B1.D2E9C230
> Content-Type: text/html;
> 	charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I also think that there are other places where far more bits can be saved.
The rest of that redundant copy spent 3294 bytes.  It was sent to all of
subscribers of this mailing list.  It will also be fetched from the archives
by many HTTP clients.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com
_______________________________________________
DCC mailing list      DCC@rhyolite.com
http://www.rhyolite.com/mailman/listinfo/dcc




More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.