[Gdal-dev] Compress via NTFS or in-image for performance?

[Chaitanya kumar CH]

Matt,

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.

In my experience NTFS compression slows down disk access time significantly.
I noticed this on my slow and old system.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matt Wilkie <maphew at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Dear GDAL,
>
> Any thoughts on whether the best read/write performance vs disk space used
> is achieved through file system compression or in-raster compression? The
> former would be via Windows NTFS compact and the latter via TIFF LZW or
> perhaps JP2.
>
> thanks,
>
> -matt
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n2.nabble.com/Compress-via-NTFS-or-in-image-for-performance-tp3491435p3491435.html
> Sent from the GDAL - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>



-- 
Best regards,
Chaitanya kumar CH.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20090825/bd27172c/attachment.html