On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:18:26PM -0400, Eric Siegerman wrote:
>
> - Better compression, probably. Hardware compression is
> typically some variant of LZ, isn't it? I don't know how
> gzip -1 (the default "compress-fast") compares with that, but
> gzip -9 (the default "compress-best") does a lot better.
>
> Ok, here's one quickie far-from-representative test. Sorted in
> order of decreasing size, a largish, mostly-text file, and its
> compression by compress, and by the several grades of gzip.
> Size CPU File
> ------- ---- --------------------
> 5560320 0 amanda-2.4.4.tar
> 2096458 0.88 amanda-2.4.4.tar.Z
> 1496904 0.68 amanda-2.4.4.tar.gz1
> 1227454 1.28 amanda-2.4.4.tar.gz6
> 1220934 2.01 amanda-2.4.4.tar.gz9
My tests have always shown similar results.
I wish we could do comprss-default (no -level option),
which is the same as -6, and get nearly the same compression
as -9 but with far less cpu.
--
Jon H. LaBadie jon AT jgcomp DOT com
JG Computing
4455 Province Line Road (609) 252-0159
Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
|