Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 19:06:17 -0500 (EST) From: vogelke+unix@pobox.com (Karl Vogel) To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: where to ask about problems with bsdinstall in 9.0RC2? Message-ID: <20111120000617.AEBD0BF4C@kev.msw.wpafb.af.mil> In-Reply-To: <788196A576272A9B463EE70B@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> (message from Daniel Staal on Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:06:43 -0400) References: <20111118230001.GJ8967@itcom245.staff.itd.umich.edu> <4EC6FE1A.2040207@gmail.com> <4EC76580.7060204@infracaninophile.co.uk> <788196A576272A9B463EE70B@mac-pro.magehandbook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:06:43 -0400, >> Daniel Staal <DStaal@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. --illoai@gmail.com, 14 Feb 2011
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111120000617.AEBD0BF4C>