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)