On 2010Feb10 10:31 AM, John Doe wrote:
> From: Sean M Clark <smclark AT tamu DOT edu>
>> xz/lzma is another consideration.  At moderate compression levels, lzma
>> seems to be about the same or slightly faster than bzip2 with a little
>> better compression.  At lower compression levels it seems like it's
>> about as fast as gzip while compressing noticeably farther - at least
>> in the small amount of testing I've done so far with the "xz"
>> implementation of lzma compression.
>>[...]
> Judjing by the following becnhmarks, lzma seems quite resource hungry...
> http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks.html

Hmmm, those results more or less reflect what I remember from the
testing I did.  I don't remember the difference in compression speed
between xz and bzip2 being quite as high as this, but that could either
be due to xz being more efficient than "lzmash" and/or my own faulty memory.

I note that lzma -2 tended to compress better than bzip2 could manage at
any setting, and faster than "default" bzip2.

I had forgotten about the much larger memory usage of xz, though in a
modern context the amount still looks pretty trivial (even at the
default setting it requires less than 90MB [the "me" of 5 years ago
would be appalled to see me describe "90MB" as "trivial", but still...).
lzma -2 only requires 12M in those results.

Wouldn't necessarily bother with lzma compression on a tiny NAS box
with only 32-64MB RAM in it, but I think it'd be a useful option on a
"real" computer.

I have no idea what would be involved in adding additional compression
options to bacula-fd/bacula-sd, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLARIS 10 is the OS for Data Centers - provides features such as DTrace,
Predictive Self Healing and Award Winning ZFS. Get Solaris 10 NOW
http://p.sf.net/sfu/solaris-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users