☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ to Programmer [email protected]English • 2 years agoNew File Formatlemmy.mlimagemessage-square86fedilinkarrow-up1676
arrow-up1676imageNew File Formatlemmy.ml☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ to Programmer [email protected]English • 2 years agomessage-square86fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink4•2 years agozstd may be newer and faster but lzma still compresses more
minus-squareGammalinkfedilinkEnglish11•edit-22 years agoThought I’d check on the Linux source tree tar. zstd -19 vs lzma -9: ❯ ls -lh total 1,6G -rw-r--r-- 1 pmo pmo 1,4G Sep 13 22:16 linux-6.6-rc1.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 pmo pmo 128M Sep 13 22:16 linux-6.6-rc1.tar.lzma -rw-r--r-- 1 pmo pmo 138M Sep 13 22:16 linux-6.6-rc1.tar.zst About +8% compared to lzma. Decompression time though: zstd -d -k -T0 *.zst 0,68s user 0,46s system 162% cpu 0,700 total lzma -d -k -T0 *.lzma 4,75s user 0,51s system 99% cpu 5,274 total Yeah, I’m going with zstd all the way.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•2 years agodamn I did not know zstd was that good. Never thought I’d hear myself say this unironically but thanks Facebook
minus-squareGammalinkfedilinkEnglish4•2 years ago*Thank you engineers who happen to be working at Facebook
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•2 years agoAs always, you gotta know both so that you can pick the right tool for the job.
zstd may be newer and faster but lzma still compresses more
Thought I’d check on the Linux source tree tar.
zstd -19vslzma -9:About +8% compared to lzma. Decompression time though:
Yeah, I’m going with zstd all the way.
Nice data. Thanks for reminding me why I prefer zstd
damn I did not know zstd was that good. Never thought I’d hear myself say this unironically but thanks Facebook
*Thank you engineers who happen to be working at Facebook
Very true, good point
As always, you gotta know both so that you can pick the right tool for the job.