On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 09:53:38AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > However, before I might move it effectively into action I would like to
> > stress that the change turns the udd-bugs.sql.gz from previousely less
> > than 10MB to 65MB (in other words more than 10% of a full dump). Do you
> > think this is acceptable?
>
> Yes
Fine. I'll implement this in the next couple of days.
> > BTW, I also tried xz compression which turns original 65MB into 35MB. I
> > don't know about what you might care much - processing time at
> > udd.debian.org or bandwith - but may be that might be an option
> > (probably even more for udd.sql because more people might download
> > this.) In case it helps deciding I might add the comparison of time
> > needed to compress using gz and xz.
>
> I don't really care about any of those, since the compression is only
> run once a day anyway. It probably makes sense to continue to use .gz as
> switching to .xz would require notifying users of the .gz file.
Assuming that the "users" of udd-bugs.sql are only users of the
according script clone_udd_bugs_fetch.sh switching the compression
method seems pretty cheap. This might be different for general udd.sql.
So despite the inconsistency between the compression method of the
different data dumps I do not see any drawback in reducing the size by
close to 50%.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121113090213.gb13...@an3as.eu
