Matt,<br><br>NTFS compression is typically implemented for generic data. On the other hand, the raster compression algorithms do it based on the heuristics of the image data. It is bound to be better. You will even have an option of choosing how lossy the compression should be with these algorithms. Tiff lzw typically uses lossless compression.<br>
<br>In my experience NTFS compression slows down disk access time significantly. I noticed this on my slow and old system.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matt Wilkie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:maphew@gmail.com">maphew@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
Dear GDAL,<br>
<br>
Any thoughts on whether the best read/write performance vs disk space used<br>
is achieved through file system compression or in-raster compression? The<br>
former would be via Windows NTFS compact and the latter via TIFF LZW or<br>
perhaps JP2.<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
<br>
-matt<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
View this message in context: <a href="http://n2.nabble.com/Compress-via-NTFS-or-in-image-for-performance-tp3491435p3491435.html" target="_blank">http://n2.nabble.com/Compress-via-NTFS-or-in-image-for-performance-tp3491435p3491435.html</a><br>
Sent from the GDAL - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gdal-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org">gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Best regards,<br>Chaitanya kumar CH.<br>