On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Victor Hugo dos Santos<listas....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM, John Drescher<dresche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Victor Hugo dos >> Santos<listas....@gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> You are not using the same exact dataset (145GB versus 140GB source >> data ) in both tests so its meaningless that GZIP6 is better than >> GZIP9. > > yes.. one report is a little more big that other, but are the same > files in distinct dates and "only" 5GB of extra data !!! > It looks like the 5 GB of extra data is not as compressible as the rest of the 140GB. > > IMHO, serves of base of comparative. > > In the compression rate (point more important) of this 3 reports, the > difference between GZIP6 and GZIP9 is of 0.1%
I would bet that if you did the test again with the 145GB but with the default GZIP6 there would be more than a .1 difference and it would be GZIP6 that would be the one with the worse compression rate. > but elapsed time is extremely distinct. > That is expected and why bacula defaults to GZIP6 instead of GZIP9 or some other compression. John ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users