Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 6th Oct 2007 23:12 UTC, submitted by Kaj de Vos
Thread beginning with comment 276733
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I tried it on 2 VMWare virtual machines with full Linux installations, and came up with right around 18% gain over bzip2 on both tests. So I think it's pretty fair to call a 20% gain typical. 30-40% maybe not, but for certain classes of files perhaps.
1222163426 vs 1485770949
17.7%
1037944559 vs 1274922856
18.6%






Member since:
2005-07-24
"""
"""
The data I transfer daily in lzma format is my own customers' point of sale data. I can't very well send you that. So try this instead:
#!/bin/bash
cd /etc
tar -c -v -f - . | cat > ~/test.tar
tar -c -v -f - . | bzip2 > ~/test.tar.bz2
tar -c -v -f - . | lzma -9 > ~/test.tar.lzma
Here are the results on my FC7 system:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 114114560 2007-10-07 16:39 test.tar
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9486794 2007-10-07 16:40 test.tar.bz2
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6953453 2007-10-07 16:44 test.tar.lzma
That's 27% smaller than the bzip2 file, on a test I pulled randomly out of the air.
The *big* news here is that there are actually bzip2 zealots in this world! Who'd have thought?
Would you like a valium?
Edited 2007-10-07 22:02