I am wondering which would do a better job (or if it matters) of compressing files - tar or using the program for my backups, easeus todo backup?

Define "better"

Hm, not entirely sure. I've always thought nothing beats a Linux program or tool, and I've considered just using linux for the compression. which would you use? would you rely on the program to do compression for you, or use linux? not sure if one is able to compress the content more than another?

You could run a test. Try compressing a group of files both ways and see which way produces the smaller backup file.

----------------------
Steve Stites

1 members found this post helpful.

Tar doesn't compress files. It is just a "Tape archiver."

You can use gzip, xz or bzip2 with tar though, through tar parameters. If you are talking about how small an archive can be made with compression then the typical order is:

From best compression to lowest compression

• xz
• bzip2
• gzip

But remember, there is a nearly catastrophic amount of time to compress things to their limit. using xz on a multi-GB file can take many many hours.

would gzip be recommended for personal use? I don't want something that takes forever to compress. and I never heard of xz.

Gzip is the one i use most. Just call it out in your tar command as:

• c - compress
• z - call gzip
• v - verbose
• f - to file: filename.tar.gz

@ sniper8752

Have you tried rar in linux. It has many options that you can view by typing
rar --help | less

It also does compressions. For example

a = includes all files and subfolders and permissions settings, etc
-m0 = zero compression
-m3 = default compression
-m5 = maximum compression

You can also add a data recovery record in case the rar archive becomes corrupted.
If the archive becomes 10% corrupted, the files can still be recovered through parity.


If you want to encrypt the archive and add a password add the -hp switch
You will be prompted to enter a password

To Extract the RAR archive is as simple as
e = Extract files without archived paths
x = Extract files with full path

**Note: if the archive is password protected, you will be prompted for it

'tar' and 'gzip' are included in nearly every distro by default though. Just an fyi.

True, but the OP can install rar if he/she wants to. I was just making a suggestion.

Thanks, I'll try these out!

Is this common to do? How much longer does it take, if so?

In the world of downloading and sharing files through newsgroups or torrents, using recovery records or parity archives is a common thing because data loss is likely. Also, in some high importance data storage situations Parity Archives are used, especially for Hard Copy/Offsite Backups.

For day to day backups, multiple backup locations and media along with MD5/CRC check files are usually sufficient. A tar+gzip can get you a backup fairly quickly that is recognized by most people/systems/programs in the Linux world that is easy to check, restore and push off to multiple backup locations for redundancy.

Rar is also closed source and proprietary, and is not "Free Software." Tar and Gzip are GPL licensed and are "Free Software." If that kind of thing matters to you.

it's optional. I rarely use it. The process can be fast or slow depending on compression level i.e m3 or m5, the total size of the directory and/or file(s) and the recovery percentage used. The 10 in -rr10 can be a higher or lower number.

I use tar and rar where it is suited for me, but I use rsync a bit more than the others.

There are many archivers to use in linux both free and non-free, it's a matter of preference or choice. And it's OK to use them all if you want to.