20 Nov
2014
20 Nov
'14
6:43 a.m.
On 20 November 2014 15:34, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Toby Corkindale <toby@dryft.net> writes:
I ran a quick test using (non-zfs) equivalents of various compression tools, over a 2.0G filesystem image. (ie. hoping that represents a fair variety of binary+text files)
xz 253s 103M
That is substantially better compression ratio than what I see when compressing root filesystems, e.g.
Oh, yeah, it's not remotely full, so there'll be a bunch of blank space in there. I would only pay attention to the relative sizes of the resulting compressed files, not the compression ratio from the start. thanks for the tip re parallelisable xz utils.