Other people's mileage may vary, but I have found bunzip2 to be
absolutely hideously SLLOOOWWW. The following test shows bunzip2
to be 10 times slower to decompress than gunzip:
mjd@taco [~/tx] time cat gimp-0.99.15-data-extras.tar.* > /dev/null
real 2.3
user 0.0
sys 0.2
mjd@taco [~/tx] time cat gimp-0.99.15-data-extras.tar.* > /dev/null
real 0.1
user 0.0
sys 0.1
mjd@taco [~/tx] time bunzip2 -t gimp-0.99.15-data-extras.tar.bz2
real 26.8
user 26.2
sys 0.1
mjd@taco [~/tx] time gunzip -t gimp-0.99.15-data-extras.tar.gz
real 2.1
user 1.9
sys 0.0
Note this is under HP-UX, but the results are very similar under Linux.
I guess it depends on whether you have CPU cycles to burn.
Mitch.
-- | mailto:mjd#NOSPAM@nsmd.aus.hp.com | Not an official view of: | | mailto:mjd#NOSPAM@alphalink.com.au | OpenView Telecom Division | | Remove the #NOSPAM to send me mail | Hewlett Packard Australia |