Perhaps we should test to see whether we want to trade compression for time.
Unscientific benchmark: I compressed a 7.6mb tar file with bzip2, lzip, and xz. xz had the best compression but the slowest time, lzip was in the middle in both speed and size categories, and bzip2 was fastest but less compression. gzip was slower than bzip2 and the resulting compressed file was larger. Size ratios (xz=1, best compression.) 1.0000 xz ( 2242856 bytes ) 1.0050 lzip 1.1304 bzip2 1.2282 gzip Time ratios (bzip2=1, fastest compression.) 1.0000 bzip2 ( 0m0.880s ) 1.4397 gzip 2.8511 lzip 3.5352 xz FWIW...........Keith On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Earnie Boyd <ear...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 10:29:03AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: >>>Corinna, would you please consider moving to .tar.xz for snapshots? >> > -->8-- >> Poll: Does anyone care if we move from bz2 to xz for snapshots? >> > > FYI, MinGW.org uses lzma format for sometime to for the packaging > archive. Only Corinna's cat will mind if she ever finds it. :) > > -- > Earnie > -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd > > -- > Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
