On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 14:09 +0200, Javier Martín wrote: >> El lun, 16-06-2008 a las 19:47 +0800, Bean escribió: >> > Well, I did some testing a while ago, the result is in: >> > >> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2007-12/msg00114.html >> > >> > Even with lzo compressed image core.img, lzma can save up to 5K. >> > >> You mean that even with an already compressed LZO image, LZMA can >> further compress it another 5 KB? > > No, it was uncompressed. GRUB 0.97 doesn't use LZO compression.
Yes, grub 0.97 don't use lzo, but I use external lzo tool to get the result. It illustrates the result of lzo and lzma algorithm on an uncompressed file. > Anyway, we need to check savings on the GRUB 2 core image, which is much > shorter than stage2, and factor out the decompressor size. My gut > feeling is that block sorting algorithms like lzma and bzip2 would be an > overkill, and even switching to gzip would be only marginally useful. core.img is already compressed using lzo, so lzma's effect is not apparent, but if we use lzma as the primary compressor, the saving would be more significant. -- Bean _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
