* John R. Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:59:56PM -0500)
>>2. quoting a colocation facilitys website:
>>"We use bzip2 instead of gzip for data compression. ...
> This comes up here about once a month :-). There was a lengthy discussion
> last November. Quoting Alexandre Oliva:
>
> ... people who tried to use bzip2 for backup compression ended
> up finding out it was just too slow.
> And then Jonathan F. Dill after some (non-Amanda) timing tests:
> In summary, bzip2 gave me 3.84% more compression at a cost of a more
> than fourfold increase in the time that it took to run the compression.
We're using bzip iso gzip when we're making release CDs of our software
(for those who care, see www.jasongeo.com ).
The release is basically a bunch of helper scripts, and a set of tarballs.
The tarballs are each 200 - 300 M in size.
bzip2 performs upto 25% better than gzip (for those files, mostly
executables), but indeed takes up way more time (2 -3 times).
bzip2-ing a 300M tar file on a dual pentium III 600 takes roughly 15
minutes. Doing the same on a Sun UE450 (dual 250Mhz CPU) takes about an
hour.
Now imagine backing up a 18G partition .. ;)
Gerhard, {@jasongeo.com} == The Acoustic Motorbiker ==
--
__O The world is divided into 3 groups of people:
=`\<, Those who can count,
(=)/(=) And those who cannot.
