According to Daniel Staal <dst...@usa.net> on Sat, 11/19/11 at 10:06: > > --As for the rest, it is mine. > > Just as a quick digression... > > xz has only marginal improvements in compressed size over bzip2, and takes > a lot more cpu/memory resources to compress. In most cases, I'd say it's > the wrong choice for a compression format. > > However, the one place where it is unequivocally the *best* choice is one > that will make it well known: Distributing archives. It does beat bzip2 by > a small amount, and it's *decompression* time is *much* faster than bzip2 - > on par with gzip. Plus decompression can be done in a fixed amount of RAM, > regardless of the size of the files being uncompressed. For files that are > compressed once and then decompressed many times on many different boxes - > like a FreeBSD release - it's a definite win. > > But for files that will be compressed and uncompressed regularly, or > compressed and usually never touched again, it's worth thinking about > what's the best balance of resources.
Thanks for that explanation! :-) Regards, web... -- William Bulley Email: w...@umich.edu 72 characters width template ----------------------------------------->| _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
