On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 12:49:25 -0400 Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > > "lbzip2 -u" always produced smallest files (even smaller than bzip2) > > while consuming the least amount of resources (CPU power and memory). > > This directly translates to lowest bills in cloud, which makes "lbzip2 > > -u" the best choice here. > > But... the size difference in your test cases appear to be 0.1% and > 0.02%. Am I reading that right? And, compressing linux-3.12.6.tar with xz > instead of bzip2 gives a 15.6%, or with xz -9, 19.7%. Of course, that's very > slow, and the other resource factors are important too. (And lbzip2 is > impressively fast.) Well, looking at the table, I calculate size differences of -0.10% and -0.14% for lbzip2 and lbzip2 -u, respectively, compared to bzip2 for compression of payload.tar. .. and -0.31% and -0.02% for linux-3.12.6.tar. -- Susi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
