diffrent cloop version maybe?
I have seen several references to the increase in Knoppix image size. I have looked at the effects of this with the 3.2-7-24-EN version and I want to understand why this happens. Here are the statistics:
[OUTLINE]
I pull the contents of the CDROM to harddisk
I pull the contents of the compressed loopback FS to harddisk
I do NOTHING ... add nothing, change nothing
Rebuild the cloop fs
Rebuild the final ISO
Here is a comparison:
Originial ISO
KNOPPIX_V3.2-2003-07-24-EN.iso -> 726171648 (ls)
After CD Boot the 7-24-EN Knoppix 3.2 sizes are:
/KNOPPIX -> 1837388k (du -s)
/cdrom -> 708743k (du -s)
/cdrom/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX -> 717986603 (ls)
After copying contents to ext3 partition
cdrom/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX -> 717986603 (du -s)
KNOPPIX.d/ -> 2125956k (du -s)
After Remaking the KNOPPIX File using command:
mkisofs -R -U -V \"KNOPPIX filesystem\" -hide-rr-moved -cache-inodes -no-bak -pad \
KNOPPIX.d/ | create_compressed_fs - 65536 > cdrom/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX
I get a cloop fs image:
cdrom/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX -> 740361704 (ls)
Final ISO using :
mkisofs -pad -l -r -v -J -V "KNOPPIX" -hide-rr-moved -o myknoppix.iso -b KNOPPIX/boot.img -c KNOPPIX/boot.cat cdrom
myknoppix.iso -> 748546048 (ls)
The trouble step is clearly the creation of the CLOOP ISO. Some threads have said that it depends on hardware (lots of things, drive RPM, processor, etc). But I don't understand why this would be the case. Slower hardware should just take longer ... not result in a different file size. Am I making a mistake somewhere?
So somehow going through the process without adding anything I gain about 22000000B
Its a mystery to me.
Austin
diffrent cloop version maybe?
The additional information I have:
I have two compressed loopback ISO 9660 Filesystems. The oringal one from the 3.2-7-24-EN version of Knoppix (ORIGINAL) and the one I made directly from that without changing anything, simply copying to ext3 partition, then creating new cloop image (MINE). Here are their stats:
ORIGINAL
ISO Size: 701159 k
du -s in / of mounted cloop fs: 1837388 k
du -s of source the cloop fs was made from: 2125956 k
MINE
ISO Size: 722819 k
du -s in / of mounted cloop fs: 1837390 k
du -s of source the cloop fs was made from: 2125956 k
So I think it is important to note the following things ... the sizes of the mounted loopback filesystems are only different by two bytes BUT the cloop ISO file itself is different by 20000 k. That is 2 kB -> 20000 kB.
OK, so I have come up with a good explaination for this I think. Since cloop compresses its data in 65k blocks (something like that) how you sort the files when you build your compressed loopback filesystem will have a major effect on the final cumulative compression ratio achieved. So you could be splitting your FS into 65k blocks such that you get a BAD compression ratio or you can be splitting it up to compress most efficiently. Since I do not sort my files in any particular manner I just get whatever comes up.
So I will try sorting the same exact file system and build off of that and see if the resuling cloop fs image is different.
Austin
PS - BTW, the cloop versions are identical.
For those that are curious, the size of the KNOPPIX file is different if you sort it, like I suggested. However the difference is miniscule.
Another good tip, you can run "isoinfo -d -i /dev/cloop" after you have inserted your cloop module on the cloop image of your choice. This allows you to look at ISO info that is otherwise not visible.
Granted I still haven't solved my problem.
Austin
Finally a resolution to this issue:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:26:05PM +0200, Baeckeroot alain wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> I'm running Knoppix-3.3_2003.09.24 and I'm remastering...
>> As I was in trouble, I tried to remaster the same CD whithout changing anything
>> but just test the whole process:
>>
>> I mount (cloop) the huge compressed KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX file
>> I copy it to mydir (for a future chroot apt-get ....)
>> I change nothing, and I
>> mkisofs | create_compress_fs > myKNOPPIX
>>
>> The file is now 715 MB instead of 700 !!! so it doesn't fit into my CD !!!
>>
>> What's wrong ?
>> Are there any options ?
>> I'm working on ext3 filesystem, should I do it on xfs ?
No, you are just victim of a kernel bug in the iso9660 filesystem.
Hardlinks are not correctly copied as hardlinks, so they are split into
individual files and therefore require more space on the destination
filesystem. If you replace all files that are >= 1 Byte and identical by
content to each other, with hardlinks, the allocated space should shrink
accordingly.
Regards
-Klaus Knopper
-----------------------------------
-Austin
Here is a program that will search for duplicate files and then link them:
<a href=http://www.stearns.org/freedups/>http://www.stearns.org/freedups/</a>
It will probably reduce the size of your image by about 30-60 MB.
I got a 33 MB reduction on the 3.3 9-24 disk
Austin
AMD EPYC 7282 CPU Processor 16 Cores 32 Threads 2.8GHZ up to 3.2GHZ 120W no lock
$75.00
Intel - Core i9-12900K Desktop Processor 16 (8P+8E) Cores up to 5.2 GHz Unloc...
$619.99
Intel - Core i7-12700K Desktop Processor 12 (8P+4E) Cores up to 5.0 GHz Unloc...
$419.99
Intel Xeon E5-2697A V4 2.6GHz CPU Processor 16-Core Socket LGA2011 SR2K1
$39.99
AMD Ryzen 5 4500 6-Core 3.6GHz Socket AM4 65W CPU Desktop Processor
$79.00
Intel Quad Core i3-12100 3.3GHz 12MB LGA1700 12th Gen. CPU Processor SRL62
$45.96
Intel Core i7-3770 3.40GHz 8MB Quad Core Socket LGA1155 CPU Processor SR0PK
$35.00
Intel Core i9-13900KF Unlocked Desktop Processor - 24 Cores (8P+16E) & 32 Thread
$539.99
Intel 16 Core i7-13700T DESKTOP processor TURBO Boost 4.90Ghz CM8071504820903
$269.00
Intel Core i7-7700 3.60GHz Quad-Core CPU
$41.58