On Jul 20, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Norberto Meijome wrote:
Is it normal for bzip2 to be significantly slower than gzip?
If not, where can I look for things that might be causing
"bzip2 --fast" to take 50-60 times longer to compress a
(sendmail log) file than gzip?
i never measured it to see if it is 50-60 times slower, but yes,
bzip2 out of the water on speed. I wanted to use bzip2 to compress
weblog files, but gzip beat it my miles, and bzip2 wasn't THAT much
compressing it to make it worth it.
Thanks for the feedback, Norberto.
Of course, it all depends on what your priorities are, too-- if what
you want is a final tarball which is being mirrored and downloaded
frequently, then your goal is to obtain the absolute best
compression, and how much CPU --best takes isn't important.
Comparing the default (-5 compression?) of gzip to bzip2 would
probably be more reasonable if you care about reasonably timely
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"