3 ms·
The last time I did a test like this, it was way faster to tar first without compression, and then run gzip on the tar file.
by jedberg 4y ago
The last time I did a test like this, it was way faster to tar first without compression, and then run gzip on the tar file.
- crazytalk 4y agoWould be curious about OS / input/output size / hardware/virtualization tech, the only reason I can think for this would be tiny buffers with exorbitantly expensive context switches like you'd see on some older virtualization or e.g. puny escaped-a-VCR ARM chips
- Not_Oles 4y agoIt's been a few days, but I still had the original files in their original locations. So: root@darkstar:/usr# date -u; time gzip < local-revert.tar > local-revert.tar.gz Tue Oct 11 02:49:32 UTC 2022 real 24m35.214s user 23m57.449s sys 0m27.327s root@darkstar:/usr# From the linked article, for convenient reference, making the .tgz file with tar cvzf took about 28.2 minutes. Making an uncompressed .tar file took about 1.2 minutes. Just now, compressing with gzip took 24.6 minutes. It seems, in this situation, about 2.4 minutes might be saved by creating the tar file first and then compressing separately.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]