Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
kernel-compression [2022/12/19 05:02] – snacsnoc | kernel-compression [2022/12/19 05:10] (current) – snacsnoc | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | The main difference between XZ compression and Gzip compression is in the compression algorithms they use. XZ compression is based on the LZMA2 algorithm, which is designed to achieve very high compression ratios. Gzip compression, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Another difference is that XZ compression is usually more efficient than Gzip in terms of file size when compressing larger files. This is because the XZ compression algorithm is designed to detect and store repeating patterns more efficiently. Gzip, on the other hand, is better suited for compressing smaller files, as the Deflate algorithm is faster and more efficient in these cases. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
Kernel compression methods and comparisons: | Kernel compression methods and comparisons: | ||
GZIP, bzip2, LZMA, XZ, LZO, | GZIP, bzip2, LZMA, XZ, LZO, | ||
Line 25: | Line 30: | ||
7852 rootfs.gz | 7852 rootfs.gz | ||
| | ||
- | ====== rootfs compression: | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | [easto@cupcake][~/ | ||
- | cd / | ||
- | wait | ||
- | mv rootfs.xz boot/ | ||
- | / | ||
- | Size of boot image is 4 sectors -> No emulation | ||
- | | ||
- | Total translation table size: 2048 | ||
- | Total rockridge attributes bytes: 954 | ||
- | Total directory bytes: 2408 | ||
- | Path table size(bytes): | ||
- | Max brk space used 0 | ||
- | 5414 extents written (10 MB) | ||
- | |||
====== Speed: ====== | ====== Speed: ====== | ||
- | [easto@cupcake][~/ | + | |
+ | |||
+ | real 0m0.661s | ||
+ | user 0m0.607s | ||
+ | sys | ||
- | real 0m0.661s | + | |
- | user 0m0.607s | + | |
- | sys | + | real 0m4.697s |
- | + | user 0m4.521s | |
- | [easto@cupcake][/ | + | sys |
- | + | ||
- | real 0m4.697s | + | |
- | user 0m4.521s | + | |
- | sys | + |