7 ms·

I hope 7-Zip will support Zstandard someday, .tar.zst is getting more and more common and having to point people on Windows to install either modern7z (7z plugi

I hope 7-Zip will support Zstandard someday, .tar.zst is getting more and more common and having to point people on Windows to install either modern7z (7z plugin for several new compression algorithms) or use zstd from the CLI is complicated.

omgtehlion 6y ago
https://www.tc4shell.com/en/7zip/modern7z/ https://www.tc4shell.com/en/7zip/modern7z/ windows-only, though (and 3rd-party)...
- qalmakka 6y ago
  That's exactly what I quoted in my comment. It's not necessary on Linux though, given that every environment ships a good archiving program (like Ark or File Roller) that supports zstandard.
sigzero 6y ago
I have never seen a .zst file. Just a comment.
- chungy 6y ago
  They're becoming increasingly common, especially if you ever pay attention to Linux packaging.
  - moistbar 6y ago
    The majority that I've seen have been .tar.xz
    - axaxs 6y ago
      Arch, arguably one of the most prolific user bases, uses zst.
- unixhero 6y ago
  Me neither, never. Buy if Arch is doing it, then I am sure it is worthwhile.
- Emanation 6y ago
  Only time ive seen it was while installing zsh for git bash.
- qalmakka 6y ago
  Zstandard is getting ubiquitous everywhere: inside of RPMs, as a way to compress data onto filesystems (both Btrfs and ZFS support it) and in several other applications. It decompresses much much faster than XZ while offering a comparable level of compression (XZ is still better, but at with an unreasonably worse computational cost). The fact .tar.zst or .tzst isn't supercommon (yet) is for the same reason .tar.xz took years to become widely adopted: lots of OSes still ship `tar`s that don't support it out of the box, like Windows (which only supports gzip actually) and macOS (which ships an old version of bsdtar and no libzst). On a reasonably new Linux, is like opening every other kind of tar.
kiririn 6y ago
I’ve always been confused by the popular choice of compression on tar archives. If a small portion of a gz, xz, zst, etc archive is corrupted you lose everything after it, defeating the purpose of using a stream format like Tar. The algorithms that can recover data after the corruption like bzip2 and lzip don’t see much use these days
- __s 6y ago
  Two reasons: - if you know tar supports your directory / metadata, you don't have to lookup if zst will preserve that info - interfile compression I don't think people would say they use tar because it's a stream format. They use it because it packages files/directories into a file
  - zeepzeep 6y ago
    I only use it for keeping file permissions
- dTal 6y ago
  99.9% of the time, if a .tar.gz archive is corrupted, I don't want to recover the data - I want to redownload it from a different mirror because it's source code and it probably won't work with any corruption at all.
  - TonyTrapp 6y ago
    Sometimes you have no choice. Downloading historic archives of which there is no other copy, trying to recover of it as much as possible.
- evil-olive 6y ago
  In the common case of receiving a compressed tar over the network, it should hopefully be protected by at least a checksum or hash, if not a cryptographic signature. If I expect I may have to deal with some form of data corruption (such as long-term archival media), I'd rather add a layer such as PAR2 [0]. Rather than content myself with "if the tar file is corrupted, I can probably recover most of the contents", erasure coding gives me confidence that I can definitely recover all of the contents, with confidence they're not corrupted, as long as I have enough parity data. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchive
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
https://mcmilk.de/projects/7-Zip-zstd/ https://mcmilk.de/projects/7-Zip-zstd/ https://github.com/mcmilk/7-Zip-zstd/releases https://github.com/mcmilk/7-Zip-zstd/releases

omgtehlion 6y ago

https://www.tc4shell.com/en/7zip/modern7z/ https://www.tc4shell.com/en/7zip/modern7z/ windows-only, though (and 3rd-party)...

qalmakka 6y ago
That's exactly what I quoted in my comment. It's not necessary on Linux though, given that every environment ships a good archiving program (like Ark or File Roller) that supports zstandard.

sigzero 6y ago

I have never seen a .zst file. Just a comment.

chungy 6y ago
They're becoming increasingly common, especially if you ever pay attention to Linux packaging.
- moistbar 6y ago
  The majority that I've seen have been .tar.xz
  - axaxs 6y ago
    Arch, arguably one of the most prolific user bases, uses zst.
unixhero 6y ago
Me neither, never. Buy if Arch is doing it, then I am sure it is worthwhile.
Emanation 6y ago
Only time ive seen it was while installing zsh for git bash.
qalmakka 6y ago
Zstandard is getting ubiquitous everywhere: inside of RPMs, as a way to compress data onto filesystems (both Btrfs and ZFS support it) and in several other applications. It decompresses much much faster than XZ while offering a comparable level of compression (XZ is still better, but at with an unreasonably worse computational cost). The fact .tar.zst or .tzst isn't supercommon (yet) is for the same reason .tar.xz took years to become widely adopted: lots of OSes still ship `tar`s that don't support it out of the box, like Windows (which only supports gzip actually) and macOS (which ships an old version of bsdtar and no libzst). On a reasonably new Linux, is like opening every other kind of tar.

kiririn 6y ago

I’ve always been confused by the popular choice of compression on tar archives. If a small portion of a gz, xz, zst, etc archive is corrupted you lose everything after it, defeating the purpose of using a stream format like Tar. The algorithms that can recover data after the corruption like bzip2 and lzip don’t see much use these days

__s 6y ago
Two reasons: - if you know tar supports your directory / metadata, you don't have to lookup if zst will preserve that info - interfile compression I don't think people would say they use tar because it's a stream format. They use it because it packages files/directories into a file
- zeepzeep 6y ago
  I only use it for keeping file permissions
dTal 6y ago
99.9% of the time, if a .tar.gz archive is corrupted, I don't want to recover the data - I want to redownload it from a different mirror because it's source code and it probably won't work with any corruption at all.
- TonyTrapp 6y ago
  Sometimes you have no choice. Downloading historic archives of which there is no other copy, trying to recover of it as much as possible.
evil-olive 6y ago
In the common case of receiving a compressed tar over the network, it should hopefully be protected by at least a checksum or hash, if not a cryptographic signature. If I expect I may have to deal with some form of data corruption (such as long-term archival media), I'd rather add a layer such as PAR2 [0]. Rather than content myself with "if the tar file is corrupted, I can probably recover most of the contents", erasure coding gives me confidence that I can definitely recover all of the contents, with confidence they're not corrupted, as long as I have enough parity data. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchive

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

https://mcmilk.de/projects/7-Zip-zstd/ https://mcmilk.de/projects/7-Zip-zstd/ https://github.com/mcmilk/7-Zip-zstd/releases https://github.com/mcmilk/7-Zip-zstd/releases