Compression Performance Results
"Tristan Rhodes" <tristanr-gOv+VWruyeBS6pTDpnvEHvU/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.sysutils.backup.dar.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Greetings, Here are my rather surprising results of different compression settings in Dar. I always rebooted before starting each test. My hardware is a Pentium III 533 MHz, 640 MB RAM, and two 7200 RPM IDE hard drives. Each test was a complete backup of a basic Suse 8.2 linux install. I made the backups onto the second hard drive. No compression dar -c /mnt/backup/nozip -R / -P var/ -P proc/ -P mnt/backup -D Time: 10 minutes Size: 1,499,000,000 Gzip dar -c /mnt/backup/gzip2 -z -R / -P var/ -P proc/ -P mnt/backup/ -D Time: 70 minutes Size: 614,000,000 Gzip (Don't compress *.gz or *.bz2) dar -c /mnt/backup/gzip-skip -z -R / -P var/ -P proc/ -P mnt/backup/ -D -Z *.gz -Z *.bz2 Time: 72 minutes Size: 617,000,000 Bzip2 dar -c /mnt/backup/bzip2 -y -R / -P var/ -P proc/ -P mnt/backup/ -D Time: 44 minutes Size: 591,000,000 Bzip2 (Don't compress *.gz or *.bz2) dar -c /mnt/backup/bzip2-skip -y -R / -P var/ -P proc/ -P mnt/backup/ -D -Z *.gz -Z *.bz2 Time: 40 minutes Size: 589,000,000 These results show that Bzip2 (skip compressed files) appears to be the better compression choice. I have not tested perfomance during a restore. Please comment on these results, and compare with your experiences. Theoretically, Bzip2 should have been much slower, with a small advantage in compressed size. Tristan Rhodes ------------------------------------------------------- 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