On 2010Feb10 10:31 AM, John Doe wrote: > From: Sean M Clark <smcl...@tamu.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@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
