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 pe
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
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 bl
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
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 rig
think this was a joke :)
Yes it was a joke :) but it was based 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 &q
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 c
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 att
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'
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
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 les
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, so
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
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
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, basic
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 leas
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, 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 t
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 o
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. Spea
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 t
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
>&
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
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: h
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
&
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 tri
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 co
27 matches
Mail list logo
