Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 15:03:16 +0100 From: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bzip2 - worthy successor to gzip? Message-ID: <19981205150316.A18846@keltia.freenix.fr> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.05.9812050057070.20633-100000@guerilla.foo.bar>; from Sascha Schumann on Sat, Dec 05, 1998 at 01:02:23AM %2B0100 References: <199812042331.AAA02402@oranje.my.domain> <Pine.LNX.4.05.9812050057070.20633-100000@guerilla.foo.bar>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Sascha Schumann: > 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. Note though, that bzip2 uses a LOT more memory than gzip and by lot I mean in order of at least 5 MB for compression/decompression, generally more around 7 MB. Gzip is around .5 MB. > 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. On these machines, you don't want to enable automatic bzip2 compression :-) -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 3.0-CURRENT #2: Sun Nov 8 01:22:20 CET 1998 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?19981205150316.A18846>