1 |
On 06/23/11 07:15, Albert Hopkins wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Thursday, June 23 at 00:35 (-0400), Matthew Finkel said: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Oh, don't get me wrong, that's one reason I use qcow2 myself, but it's |
6 |
>> either something he would have to deal with when he received it or the |
7 |
>> conversion would increase the size of the disk image that would be |
8 |
>> shipped to him. |
9 |
> Yes, of course a raw image file will typically be bigger than a |
10 |
> compressed qcow, just as an unpacked stage4..tar.bz2 file is going to be |
11 |
> bigger than the original archive. But in terms transferability, |
12 |
> compressed qcows are more efficient since they only include *used* |
13 |
> blocks and they are compressed. I can convert the image into any of a |
14 |
> number of formats, but the issue then is it will be bigger, and thus |
15 |
> take me longer to upload it and the OP to download it |
16 |
Yup, exactly :-) |