On Thursday, June 23 at 00:35 (-0400), Matthew Finkel said:
> Oh, don't get me wrong, that's one reason I use qcow2 myself, but it's > either something he would have to deal with when he received it or the > conversion would increase the size of the disk image that would be > shipped to him. Yes, of course a raw image file will typically be bigger than a compressed qcow, just as an unpacked stage4..tar.bz2 file is going to be bigger than the original archive. But in terms transferability, compressed qcows are more efficient since they only include *used* blocks and they are compressed. I can convert the image into any of a number of formats, but the issue then is it will be bigger, and thus take me longer to upload it and the OP to download it.
