tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6502368017989174645.post3133086813629179335..comments2023-10-24T14:10:39.816+02:00Comments on Please, don't touch the screen.: Copying files with on-the-fly compressionAlessandro Iacopettihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16100651220450712655noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6502368017989174645.post-91167698664174296232011-11-09T14:04:58.427+01:002011-11-09T14:04:58.427+01:00there's one more resource you could be limited...there's one more resource you could be limited in: host obsolescence.<br />gzip is itself old and widespread enough to be found nearly everywhere.<br />in my experience, the same can't be said about bzip2 and 7z.Alessandro Iacopettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16100651220450712655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6502368017989174645.post-23116641351411281752011-11-08T08:27:13.107+01:002011-11-08T08:27:13.107+01:00Depends on the hosts involved. If your connection ...Depends on the hosts involved. If your connection is only 10mbit, and the hosts are modern... I'll run a quick test. 24M test file, i5 2.2GHz, and it takes 1.23 real. That's 19.5M/s, a lot more than the 10mbit connection can take - and I didn't use the -1. Bzip2 still manages 6.67M/s, which is still more than the 10mbit connection can take, so in this case bzip2 would achieve higher effective throughput than gzip (For I have yet to find any data where gzip compresses better). You might even be able to manage 7z and some of the more processor-intensive options. It's just a matter of which resource is most limited: Processing time or network throughput.Suricou Ravennoreply@blogger.com