Benjamin Pharr wrote:
> I agree with you for the most part, but you should be aware this works the
> other way in certain situations. I recently compressed a text file full of
> numbers with both bzip2 and gzip, and the bzip2 file was ~350MB and the
> gzip file was ~120MB. I surprised me, too, but
I agree with you for the most part, but you should be aware this works the
other way in certain situations. I recently compressed a text file full of
numbers with both bzip2 and gzip, and the bzip2 file was ~350MB and the
gzip file was ~120MB. I surprised me, too, but in some cases gzip works
m
Well, I would imagine it has as much to do with the file's contents as
with its size -- for (an extreme) example:
echo 'aaa' > textfile
nujoma:~> ls -l textfile
-rw-r--r--1 aperrin aperrin56 Dec 7 13:38 textfile
nujoma:~> ls -l test
Hi there!
I have just found out that bzip2 is _really_ _great_ for large files.
I have tar'ed a whole debian-installation (1.2 gigs).
This tar, compressed with gzip, has a size of ~390MB.
The same tar, compressed with bzip2 has a size of 110MB!!!
So for every body out there: If you have a large f
4 matches
Mail list logo
