Re: Performance comparison: Bzip2 vs Gzip
Nicola Larosa <nico-kqPTfkfBL9/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.sysutils.backup.dar.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I am in the process of benchmarking Dar with different compression > settings. So far, it seems like Bzip2 is the better choice, both in > compressed size AND performance. I will post the full results when I am > done, but here is a teaser... > > Creating Dar backup.... > Bzip2: 45 minutes, 590,000,000 bytes > Gzip: 71 minutes, 610,000,000 bytes That's peculiar, bzip2 is usually slower than gzip, at least at the default compression levels. Did you change them? What kind of data did you compress? > Which compression utility do other Dar users choose, and what are your > experiences with them? I use gzip -1 (minimum compression), good speed, decent compressed size. - -- "Computers are in many ways becoming a bad word in our society as a whole. They are nothing but spam, porn, and bad ergonomics." -- Shelley Walsh Nicola Larosa - nico-kqPTfkfBL9/[email protected] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/lPosXv0hgDImBm4RAvRoAKC5wStBSMgsi4aXbhpQu3kzJVghJACgvXsu wBh3h5iEwA0tIJrCfGlraPE= =+5BI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN developer relations Here's your chance to show off your extensive product knowledge We want to know what you know. Tell us and you have a chance to win $100 http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?HRPT1X3RYQNC5V4MLNSV3E54