Le vendredi 24 août 2012 à 13:28 -0600, Bob Proulx a écrit :
You are very observant! And by this you are not in the target
audience I was talking about. I know people and many people will see
66M versus 65M as a strong indicator when it should not be taken as
significant at all. These
Le jeudi 23 août 2012 à 20:24 +0800, lina a écrit :
Sorry, here you mean,
once tar -Jcf a.tar.xz a
again
tar -Jcf a.tar.xz a.tar.xz
?
No, I think this was a joke :)
In most programs, there is a depth or pass number parameter that
does just this already. If you try to compress
on a recent article where someone
expressed surprise that multiple manual passes of a compressor (I think
gz) resulted in smaller file sizes. (I couldn't find a copy of the article
to link to)
In most programs, there is a depth or pass number parameter that
does just this already. If you try to compress
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:26:25PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
There is a problem with the mashing and reformatting. It makes lzip
appear to be 66M against xz being 65M and so xz is better, right?
snip
It would be better to look at the long byte counts for this type of
comparison.
You're right,
Le jeudi 23 août 2012 à 14:26 -0600, Bob Proulx a écrit :
Jon Dowland wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
Jon Dowland wrote:
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.bz2 78M
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.gz 99M
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.xz 65M
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.lz 66M
I think lzip is worthy enough that it
Le vendredi 24 août 2012 à 10:10 +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit :
Most compressors work on a block-cipher model in order to support stream
operation and so the compressor doesn't have a global view of the data being
compressed.
At least with 7zip and xz, you can tweak the block size directly
Gaël DONVAL wrote:
Bob Proulx a écrit :
There is a problem with the mashing and reformatting. It makes lzip
appear to be 66M against xz being 65M and so xz is better, right? But
wait the above says that gz is 99M. But ls says 100M. So the listed
sizes are not 100% correct. So 66M is
Le mercredi 22 août 2012 à 12:52 -0400, Gary Dale a écrit :
I find that .lzma does a pretty good job and isn't too slow.
My 2 cents:
LZMA/LZMA2 is indeed a good choice if you want best compression: it
should work with almost anything (except already compressed streams such
as videos, images,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:44:38PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Jon Dowland wrote:
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.bz2 78M
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.gz 99M
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.xz 65M
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.lz 66M
I think lzip is worthy enough that it should have a mention too. It
has gotten less
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:43:24PM +, Camaleón wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:40:36 +0800, lina wrote:
Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
Ha, that's like asking what do clouds smell like? :-)
Remember to run your chosen compression algorithm at least twice
On Thursday 23,August,2012 06:26 PM, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:43:24PM +, Camaleón wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:40:36 +0800, lina wrote:
Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
Ha, that's like asking what do clouds smell like? :-)
Remember to run
Jon Dowland wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
Jon Dowland wrote:
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.bz2 78M
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.gz 99M
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.xz 65M
linux-3.6-rc2.tar.lz 66M
I think lzip is worthy enough that it should have a mention too. It
has gotten less attention than xz and
Hi,
Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance to use in future, but still
need to keep there at least for the next two years just in case.
so I tried the xz, but xz not support the directory? or maybe I don't
know how to compress
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 21:40 +0800, lina wrote:
Hi,
Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance to use in future, but still
need to keep there at least for the next two years just in case.
so I tried the xz, but xz not support
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 15:54 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 21:40 +0800, lina wrote:
Hi,
Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance to use in future, but still
need to keep there at least for the next two years
PPS: For my needs tar czf aka .tar.gz is the best way to go. More
compression doesn't lead to smaller files, but it takes much more time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
gz: tar zcf
bzip2: tar jcf
xz: tar Jcf
On 22/08/12 16:07, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
PPS: For my needs tar czf aka .tar.gz is the best way to go. More
compression doesn't lead to smaller files, but it takes much more time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On Wednesday 22,August,2012 09:54 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 21:40 +0800, lina wrote:
Hi,
Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance to use in future, but still
need to keep there at least for the next two years just
On Wednesday 22,August,2012 10:15 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
gz: tar zcf
bzip2: tar jcf
xz: tar Jcf
So the most efficient one is the .tar.xz one?
On 22/08/12 16:07, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
PPS: For my needs tar czf aka .tar.gz is the best way to go. More
compression doesn't lead to smaller
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 16:15 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
xz: tar Jcf
I'm using a distro that packages with xz.
I'm sure that there never was a big difference between
gz: tar zcf and bzip2: tar jcf for the length of the files, but the
time for packing and unpacking does differ very much. Speaking
On 22/08/12 16:24, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 16:15 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
xz: tar Jcf
I'm using a distro that packages with xz.
I'm sure that there never was a big difference between
gz: tar zcf and bzip2: tar jcf for the length of the files,
that higly depends on
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:24:19PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 16:15 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
xz: tar Jcf
I'm using a distro that packages with xz.
I'm sure that there never was a big difference between
gz: tar zcf and bzip2: tar jcf for the length of the files,
On Wednesday 22,August,2012 10:50 PM, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:24:19PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 16:15 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
xz: tar Jcf
$ tar --version
tar (GNU tar) 1.14
no -J options.
On desktop it's tar (GNU tar) 1.26 can support the
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:40:36 +0800, lina wrote:
Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
Ha, that's like asking what do clouds smell like? :-)
I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance to use in future, but still
need to keep there at least for the next two years just in case
On Wednesday 22,August,2012 11:43 PM, Camaleón wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:40:36 +0800, lina wrote:
Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
Ha, that's like asking what do clouds smell like? :-)
I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance to use in future, but still
need
On 22/08/12 12:12 PM, lina wrote:
On Wednesday 22,August,2012 11:43 PM, Camaleón wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:40:36 +0800, lina wrote:
Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
Ha, that's like asking what do clouds smell like?:-)
I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance
Jon Dowland wrote:
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Jerome BENOIT wrote:
xz: tar Jcf
I'm using a distro that packages with xz.
I'm sure that there never was a big difference between
gz: tar zcf and bzip2: tar jcf for the length of the files, but the
time for packing and unpacking does
27 matches
Mail list logo
