Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 01:02:23 +0100 (MET) From: Sascha Schumann <sas@schell.de> To: van.woerkom@netcologne.de Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bzip2 - worthy successor to gzip? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.05.9812050057070.20633-100000@guerilla.foo.bar> In-Reply-To: <199812042331.AAA02402@oranje.my.domain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Marc van Woerkom wrote: > Today, while fetching egcs, I noticed that those folks use bzip2 for > compressing their snapshots: > > -rw-r--r-- 1 220 1002 8917442 Dec 2 19:33 egcs-1.1.1.tar.bz2 > -rw-r--r-- 1 220 1002 11604853 Dec 2 19:27 egcs-1.1.1.tar.gz > -rw-r--r-- 1 220 1002 6222128 Dec 2 19:34 egcs-core-1.1.1.tar.bz2 > -rw-r--r-- 1 220 1002 8177883 Dec 2 19:16 egcs-core-1.1.1.tar.gz > > These files are only about 70% of their gzip counterparts - quite impressive. > > Julian Seward (jseward@acm.org), the author of this program claims extensive > tests on his web page > > http://www.muraroa.demon.co.uk > > Comments? If you have an archive and your focus is on saving storage, go with it. Its compression algorithm is much slower compared to gzip, but also more effective. You see it yourself on the egcs site. It would be interesting to know how much traffic a busy site like ftp.cdrom.com or sunsite could save, if they would completely stick to bzip2. Regards, Sascha Schumann | Consultant | finger sas@schell.de | for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.05.9812050057070.20633-100000>