On Nov 19, 12:02 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think bz2 is the smaller than tar.gz in general.
> You might try doing a few examples to see how they
> compare in the type of data you are compressing,
> to see if it makes a difference. I think decompressing tar.gz files
> might be slightly faster in some examples than tar.bz2 files,
> so it also depends whether speed is an issue.
I think it is much more important to understand what the intended use
here is instead of arguing about the finer details of compression. I
would always suggest tar.gz since bz2 support for example is not build
in for non-GNU tar.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
