On 2010Feb10 8:50 AM, Steve Polyack wrote: > On 2/10/2010 8:16 AM, Petar Bogdanovic wrote: >>> I want use bzip2 to compress my file, because I thing bzip2 is more >>> efficient... >>> >> Really? [...] >> 255526 bytes less while six times slower.. >> > This is extremely dependent on the contents of foo.iso. I don't think > its a good test because you are only seeing 10% compression either way. > There is a good chance that much of the data within your ISO is already > compressed. When using data which is typically more compressible (text > and other data that is not already compressed), the resulting size of > something compressed with bzip2 can be much smaller than when compressed > using gzip. It's true that it is much slower, but if he's talking about > it being more efficient in terms of disk space used, then he is correct.
xz/lzma is another consideration. At moderate compression levels, lzma seems to be about the same or slightly faster than bzip2 with a little better compression. At lower compression levels it seems like it's about as fast as gzip while compressing noticeably farther - at least in the small amount of testing I've done so far with the "xz" implementation of lzma compression. (The small amount of testing I've done so far suggests to me that xz with a compression level of 1 runs about as fast as gzip4 with compression at or better than gzip7, approaching bzip2 for some types of files. Cranking up to xz 6 or 7 runs a bit faster than bzip2 default but tends to give better compression.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SOLARIS 10 is the OS for Data Centers - provides features such as DTrace, Predictive Self Healing and Award Winning ZFS. Get Solaris 10 NOW http://p.sf.net/sfu/solaris-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
