On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 23:24, seth vidal wrote: > > bzip2 instead of gzip ? > > apt use bzip2. > > bzip2 is more processor intensive and it is not available everywhere > (earlier versions of python, for example) http://python-bz2.sourceforge.net/ When compressing XML, bzip2 beats gzip by a large margin. For example the createrepo files for the full FC2 DVD as currently created with gzip are about 7.74 MB total, and the same ones bzipped (gunzip ; bzip2 -9) are about 4.90 MB total. It depends on connection and processor speed how big or small the overall benefit is. Not that it would be an absolute must have right now, but keeping the bzip2 option on the map in addition to gzip for the future would be a good idea IMO. Anyone know whether bzip2 is "rsync-friendly"? It does not seem to be possible to do the same timestamp hacks with it as with gzip.
