Help me, Dr. Internet!
I can't really get a straight answer on this, and am hoping someone out there has a good solution.
Every year, I make a huge several-terrabyte backup of my entire system. When I was on Windows, I used RAR for this. Good compression, was able to break it up in 4GB file blocks to make file access easy if I needed something off the backup or repair an archive.
I've long since moved to TAR.XZ for intermediate backups, but the access takes forever cause it's a single archive, so I've never used it for my large once-a-year-complete-backup.
That said, the question: would it be worth doing the Full Everything Backup with tar.xg over jumping into Windows to WinRAR it (Day 9023849283468923 of my 30 day trial!)? In general does RAR pack tighter than TAR.XZ? Can TAR.XZ break itself into chunks for easier access?
My update is scheduled for January 1st. Any help would be appreciated! And thanks in advance!
@dolari It's a little bit old and doesn't have .xz in the results but
https://ubuntuguru.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/whats-the-best-file-compression-method/
indicates you might get a little bit better compression if you use 7zip? You'd have some similar tradeoffs to rar in that it supports random access to the archived data but does not store UNIX permissions.
@MorningSong - THANK YOU for that link though. Shows that RAR is the better compression! I guess I just need to figure out what my miles long command line it's gonna be. :)
