Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance to use in future, but still
need to keep there at least for the next two years just in case.
so I tried the xz, but xz not support the directory? or maybe I don't
know how to compress the directory.
now tried the .bz2, but still very large.
Thanks ahead for any suggestions,
Best regards,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5034E154.5000205@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/5034E154.5000205@gmail.com
08-22-2012, 01:54 PM
Ralf Mardorf
compressor
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 21:40 +0800, lina wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
>
> I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance to use in future, but still
> need to keep there at least for the next two years just in case.
>
> so I tried the xz, but xz not support the directory? or maybe I don't
> know how to compress the directory.
>
> now tried the .bz2, but still very large.
>
> Thanks ahead for any suggestions,
>
> Best regards,
AFAIK 7z does best compression, but IIRC without keeping Linux
permissions.
Regards,
Ralf
PS: "Compressor" is an audio engineering term too . So the other
answer is "Jamin", not helpful regarding to the context.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1345643698.3957.126.camel@precise
08-22-2012, 02:00 PM
Ralf Mardorf
compressor
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 15:54 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 21:40 +0800, lina wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
> >
> > I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance to use in future, but still
> > need to keep there at least for the next two years just in case.
> >
> > so I tried the xz, but xz not support the directory? or maybe I don't
> > know how to compress the directory.
> >
> > now tried the .bz2, but still very large.
> >
> > Thanks ahead for any suggestions,
> >
> > Best regards,
>
> AFAIK 7z does best compression, but IIRC without keeping Linux
> permissions.
>
> Regards,
> Ralf
>
> PS: "Compressor" is an audio engineering term too . So the other
> answer is "Jamin", not helpful regarding to the context.
PS: Regarding to bz, test if more compression really does safe space, or
if it just needs much more time, but needs nearly the same space.
Regarding to this, I experienced another "less is more" issue. Regarding
to the kind of data you'll archive it might differ for your needs. You
need to test all possibilities, AFAIK here are no rules of thumb.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1345644016.3957.131.camel@precise
08-22-2012, 02:07 PM
Ralf Mardorf
compressor
PPS: For my needs "tar czf" aka ".tar.gz" is the best way to go. More
compression doesn't lead to smaller files, but it takes much more time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1345644447.3957.134.camel@precise
08-22-2012, 02:15 PM
Jerome BENOIT
compressor
gz: tar zcf
bzip2: tar jcf
xz: tar Jcf
On 22/08/12 16:07, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
PPS: For my needs "tar czf" aka ".tar.gz" is the best way to go. More
compression doesn't lead to smaller files, but it takes much more time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
On Wednesday 22,August,2012 09:54 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 21:40 +0800, lina wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Basically which compressor is the most efficient one.
>>
>> I got 2T data, basically won't get a chance to use in future, but still
>> need to keep there at least for the next two years just in case.
>>
>> so I tried the xz, but xz not support the directory? or maybe I don't
>> know how to compress the directory.
>>
>> now tried the .bz2, but still very large.
>>
>> Thanks ahead for any suggestions,
>>
>> Best regards,
>
> AFAIK 7z does best compression, but IIRC without keeping Linux
> permissions.
Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Ralf
>
> PS: "Compressor" is an audio engineering term too . So the other
> answer is "Jamin", not helpful regarding to the context.
P.P.S. I noticed the discussion in another threads, about funny and
misbehavior and etc. I must confess here that I am not the very loyal
reader of those emails, but here I just wanna say one thing or two, in
the past, some witty conversation/jokes really made, I think, not merely
my days, but also many other people's days, I laughed even I didn't say
anything at that time and I think the funny things definitely bring some
special flavors to the list.
Thanks with best regards,
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5034E9F0.80703@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/5034E9F0.80703@gmail.com
08-22-2012, 02:21 PM
lina
compressor
On Wednesday 22,August,2012 10:15 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> gz: tar zcf
> bzip2: tar jcf
> xz: tar Jcf
>
So the most efficient one is the .tar.xz one?
>
> On 22/08/12 16:07, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> PPS: For my needs "tar czf" aka ".tar.gz" is the best way to go. More
>> compression doesn't lead to smaller files, but it takes much more time.
>>
>>
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5034EAF3.70108@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/5034EAF3.70108@gmail.com
08-22-2012, 02:24 PM
Ralf Mardorf
compressor
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 16:15 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> xz: tar Jcf
I'm using a distro that packages with xz.
I'm sure that there never was a big difference between
"gz: tar zcf" and "bzip2: tar jcf" for the length of the files, but the
time for packing and unpacking does differ very much. Speaking for Linux
backups and audio data backups.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1345645459.3957.139.camel@precise
08-22-2012, 02:33 PM
Jerome BENOIT
compressor
On 22/08/12 16:24, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 16:15 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
xz: tar Jcf
I'm using a distro that packages with xz.
I'm sure that there never was a big difference between
"gz: tar zcf" and "bzip2: tar jcf" for the length of the files,
that higly depends on the nature of the files:
if the files are compressed file, teh difference is zero;
otherwise `xz -9e' is most of the time better.
but the
time for packing and unpacking does differ very much.
bzip2 compression is a good compromised between speed and size.
xz compresses slowly, but decompress fastly.
Other criteria can enter into account:
if rsync is used, tricks may be applied.
Jerome
Speaking for Linux
backups and audio data backups.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:24:19PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 16:15 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> > xz: tar Jcf
>
> I'm using a distro that packages with xz.
>
> I'm sure that there never was a big difference between
> "gz: tar zcf" and "bzip2: tar jcf" for the length of the files, but the
> time for packing and unpacking does differ very much.
Indeed, bz2 is very slow. But it can be much better at compressing:
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120822145052.GE10344@debian
compressor
. So the other
