4 ms·

I just quickly tested it, in terms of highest compression ratio it still does not beat xz, e.g. `tar -cf -FILE | xz -c9e > FILE.tar.xz` https://blog.benmarten.m

I just quickly tested it, in terms of highest compression ratio it still does not beat xz, e.g. `tar -cf -FILE | xz -c9e > FILE.tar.xz` https://blog.benmarten.me/2016/04/01/Compress-Files-With-Highest-Compression/ https://blog.benmarten.me/2016/04/01/Compress-Files-With-Hig...

amock 10y ago
That's not a useful comparison. LZFSE is meant to be very fast and energy efficient while xz is meant for high compression while using lots of CPU and memory.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Someone 10y ago
That's not surprising, given that they went for compression and decompression speed and for energy usage. Their goal seems to have been to be at least as good as zlib at compressing stuff using less energy and doing it faster (that often correlates quite well with energy use on modern CPUs, as it allows them to drop to low energy states faster)
- a_imho 10y ago
  Could you give me some pointers on the actual numbers? My searches came back with nothing. I'm especially interested how they benchmarked the energy consumption.
  - sjwright 10y ago
    Most likely they would infer energy usage from resource consumption.
  - Someone 10y ago
    http://asciiwwdc.com/2015/sessions/712 http://asciiwwdc.com/2015/sessions/712 is the best pointer I know, but it does not give details. My guesses would be that they have a simulator that computes/estimates power usage, and that they have CPU setups where they measure power usage directly. I doubt they regularly do the "compress things till you run out of battery" thing that that talk mentions. That takes too long, and cannot be used to measure small changes in power usage.
    - a_imho 10y ago
      Do you mean by extrapolating from executed instructions? It would be very much dependent on the architecture then. It would be nice to read some independent studies and experiments, after the recent events I take any manufacturer claim on consumption with a pinch of salt.

amock 10y ago

That's not a useful comparison. LZFSE is meant to be very fast and energy efficient while xz is meant for high compression while using lots of CPU and memory.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Someone 10y ago

That's not surprising, given that they went for compression and decompression speed and for energy usage. Their goal seems to have been to be at least as good as zlib at compressing stuff using less energy and doing it faster (that often correlates quite well with energy use on modern CPUs, as it allows them to drop to low energy states faster)

a_imho 10y ago
Could you give me some pointers on the actual numbers? My searches came back with nothing. I'm especially interested how they benchmarked the energy consumption.
- sjwright 10y ago
  Most likely they would infer energy usage from resource consumption.
- Someone 10y ago
  http://asciiwwdc.com/2015/sessions/712 http://asciiwwdc.com/2015/sessions/712 is the best pointer I know, but it does not give details. My guesses would be that they have a simulator that computes/estimates power usage, and that they have CPU setups where they measure power usage directly. I doubt they regularly do the "compress things till you run out of battery" thing that that talk mentions. That takes too long, and cannot be used to measure small changes in power usage.
  - a_imho 10y ago
    Do you mean by extrapolating from executed instructions? It would be very much dependent on the architecture then. It would be nice to read some independent studies and experiments, after the recent events I take any manufacturer claim on consumption with a pinch of salt.