>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:06:43 -0400, >> Daniel Staal <dst...@usa.net> said:
D> xz has only marginal improvements in compressed size over bzip2, and D> takes a lot more cpu/memory resources to compress. In most cases, I'd D> say it's the wrong choice for a compression format. However, the one D> place where it is unequivocally the *best* choice is one that will make D> it well known: Distributing archives. Along these same lines, it works well for large mostly-text files. I have a lot of historical data in text form, 60-100 Mb uncompressed per file, and I get ~18% smaller files using xz instead of bzip2. I know disk space is cheap, but our rack space is limited. -- Karl Vogel I don't speak for the USAF or my company > Sorry I'm taking up your ever so valuable disk space! That's okay, /dev/null is pretty big. --ill...@gmail.com, 14 Feb 2011 _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
