On Vie 23 Nov 2001 13:10, mlw wrote:
>
> While agree in principle with your view on bzip2, I think there is a strong
> reason why you should use it, 20%
>
> That 20% is quite valuable. Just by switching to bzip2, the hosting
> companies can deliver 20% more downloads with the same equipment and
> bandwidth cost. The people with slow connections can get it 20% faster.
>
> Will bzip2 become the standard? Probably not in general use, but for
> downloadable tarballs it is rapidly becoming the standard. Those who pay
> for bandwidth (server or client) welcome any improvement possible.
>
> I would switch the argument around, time how long it takes to do:
>
> ncftpget postgresql-xxxx.tar.gz
> tar xpzvf postgresql-xxxx.tar.gz
> cd postgresql-xxxx
> ./configure --option
> make
> make install
>
> vs
>
> ncftpget postgresql-xxxx.tar.bz2
> bunzip2 -c postgresql-xxxx.tar.bz2 | tar xpzv
New versions of tar would do this:
tar xpjvf postgresql-xxxx.tar.gz
It comes with bzip2 support.
Saludos... :-)
--
Porqué usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera,
si podés usar PostgreSQL?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------