On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Victor Hugo dos
Santos<listas.vhs AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM, John Drescher<drescherjm AT gmail DOT com> 
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Victor Hugo dos
>> Santos<listas.vhs AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> You are not using the same exact dataset (145GB versus 140GB source
>> data ) in both tests so its meaningless that GZIP6 is better than
>> GZIP9.
>
> yes.. one report is a little more big that other, but are the same
> files in distinct dates and "only" 5GB of extra data !!!
>
It looks like the 5 GB of extra data is not as compressible as the
rest of the 140GB.
>
> IMHO, serves of base of comparative.
>
> In the compression rate (point more important) of this 3 reports, the
> difference between GZIP6 and GZIP9 is of 0.1%

I would bet that if you did the test again with the 145GB but with the
default GZIP6 there would be more than a .1 difference and it would be
GZIP6 that would be the one with the worse compression rate.

> but elapsed time is extremely distinct.
>

That is expected and why bacula defaults to GZIP6 instead of GZIP9 or
some other compression.

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge  
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, 
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize  
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users