I've known gzip for years, recently I saw bzip being used at work. Are they basically equivalent, or are there significant pros and cons to one of them over the other?
Answer
Gzip and bzip2 are functionally equivalent. (There once was a bzip, but it seems to have completely vanished off the face of the world.) Other common compression formats are zip, rar and 7z; these three do both compression and archiving (packing multiple files into one). Here are some typical ratings in terms of speed, availability and typical compression ratio (note that these ratings are somewhat subjective, don't take them as gospel):
decompression speed (fast > slow): gzip, zip > 7z > rar > bzip2
compression speed (fast > slow): gzip, zip > bzip2 > 7z > rar
compression ratio (better > worse): 7z > rar, bzip2 > gzip > zip
availability (unix): gzip > bzip2 > zip > 7z > rar
availability (windows): zip > rar > 7z > gzip, bzip2
As you can see, there isn't a clear winner. If you want to rely on programs that are likely to be installed already, use zip on Windows (or if possible, self-extracting archives, as Windows doesn't ship with any of these) and gzip on unix. If you want maximum compression, use 7z.
Rar also has downside that, as far as I know, there is no free software that creates rar archives or that can unpack all rar archives. The other formats have free implementations and no (serious) patent claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment