Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:50:20 -0700 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Norberto Meijome <freebsd@meijome.net> Cc: James Long <list@museum.rain.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: speed of bzip2 versus gzip Message-ID: <2BF10D44-4FB5-4F07-B515-553BC705B900@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20070721103710.1e16a319@localhost> References: <20070720220337.GA87174@ns.umpquanet.com> <20070721103710.1e16a319@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 20, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Norberto Meijome wrote: >> Is it normal for bzip2 to be significantly slower than gzip? >> If not, where can I look for things that might be causing >> "bzip2 --fast" to take 50-60 times longer to compress a >> (sendmail log) file than gzip? > > i never measured it to see if it is 50-60 times slower, but yes, > gzip blows > bzip2 out of the water on speed. I wanted to use bzip2 to compress > multi-GB > weblog files, but gzip beat it my miles, and bzip2 wasn't THAT much > better @ > compressing it to make it worth it. Thanks for the feedback, Norberto. Of course, it all depends on what your priorities are, too-- if what you want is a final tarball which is being mirrored and downloaded frequently, then your goal is to obtain the absolute best compression, and how much CPU --best takes isn't important. Comparing the default (-5 compression?) of gzip to bzip2 would probably be more reasonable if you care about reasonably timely compression. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2BF10D44-4FB5-4F07-B515-553BC705B900>