5 ms·
Try xz -1. Faster than gzip, smaller size. We use it for regular backups. Although the xz format is not recommended for long term archiving because it's unsafe.
by petre 6y ago
Try xz -1. Faster than gzip, smaller size. We use it for regular backups. Although the xz format is not recommended for long term archiving because it's unsafe.
https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html
- walrus01 6y agoI'm going to read this in more detail later today when I have time. But I just skimmed it, and most of the points about xz being fragile and having a weird format would seem to apply in a scenario in which a .tar.xz file became corrupted or bit-flipped from its original? eg: in which the .xz file, after some long period of archiving, no longer matched the same sha256sum as when it was originally created. Thereby making it difficult or a huge hassle to get authentic lossless/uncorrupted data out of it?
- loeg 6y agoThe "unsafe" thing is nonsense. The expressed concern is how the contents degrade in the presence of arbitrary bit flips. Any highly-compressed format is going to be susceptible to corruption amplification from random bitflips, and the higher compression level, the larger fallout. Ensure your compressed archives are not corrupted using some external FEC; either in your hardware, or something like par2.