[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> To reiterate, here are the sizes: >> coreutils-6.9.90.tar.gz 8.6 MB >> coreutils-6.9.90.tar.bz2 5.6 MB >> coreutils-6.9.90.tar.lzma 3.6 MB > > I am a hard sell. It is impressive but not hugely. The original size > was 35M and so all of these already make large size reductions. Let's > look at the numbers. > > 36280320 coreutils-6.9.90.tar > 12955108 coreutils-6.9.90.tar.Z > 8996724 coreutils-6.9.90.tar.gz > 5952780 coreutils-6.9.90.tar.bz2 > 3682634 coreutils-6.9.90.tar.lzma > > That yields[1]: > > 100% 36280320 coreutils-6.9.90.tar > 64% 12955108 coreutils-6.9.90.tar.Z > 75% 8996724 coreutils-6.9.90.tar.gz > 83% 5952780 coreutils-6.9.90.tar.bz2 > 89% 3682634 coreutils-6.9.90.tar.lzma > > Let's see that more visually. Here is a bar graph. > > +----------+--------------------------------------------------+ > | compress |================================ | > | gzip |===================================== | > | bzip2 |========================================= | > | lzma |============================================ | > | true |==================================================| > +----------+--------------------------------------------------+
Hi Bob, I'm surprised you'd compare in such a pessimistic manner. I look at it differently: compare download time: going from gzip to lzma, I see a speed-up of 2.39 going from bzip2 to lzma, I see a speed-up of 1.55 compare disk usage: going from gzip to lzma, I can store more than twice as much (2.39x) data going from bzip2 to lzma, I can store 55% more data _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
