Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:44:48 +0100 From: "Martin Laabs" <martin.laabs@mailbox.tu-dresden.de> To: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: emulate an end-of-media Message-ID: <op.t65acy13724k7f@martin> In-Reply-To: <47C3A228.7090703@freebsd.org> References: <op.t63j2veq724k7f@martin> <20080225154455.4822e72a@bhuda.mired.org> <47C33384.6040701@dial.pipex.com> <200802252243.m1PMhTeq016201@fire.js.berklix.net> <47C3A228.7090703@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > Yes, gzip or bzip2 compress better, but they also: > * Are a lot slower. Yesterday I made a comparison regarding the speed of compress, bzip2 and gzip. And actually compress is much slower than gzip: $ dd if=3D/dev/random |compress -c > /dev/null 3883204 bytes/sec $ dd if=3D/dev/random |gzip -c > /dev/null 8357889 bytes/sec $ dd if=3D/dev/random |bzip2 -c > /dev/null 1042735 bytes/sec I also made a comparison between gzip and bzip2 regarding the compression ratio on a dump of my home directory (3.2GB) bzip2 took about 74min to compress, gzip only 11minutes. And in terms of compression ratio bzip2 was only 3% better than gzip. Best greet, Martin L.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.t65acy13724k7f>