3 ms·
I wonder what, if any, further improvement would be had by comparing xzip vs zstd. Obviously you need a LOT of CPU to throw at xzip if you want to use it. zst
by walrus01 5y ago
I wonder what, if any, further improvement would be had by comparing xzip vs zstd.
Obviously you need a LOT of CPU to throw at xzip if you want to use it.
zstd is very much more optimized for compression at speeds comparable to traditional gzip.
I use xzip primarily for things that will get compressed to long term storage and the time to create the archive isn't a really important factor.
in this test: https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/2020/01/04/293/ https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/2020/01/04/293/
zstd level 19 wins on time vs. xz levels 5 through 9, but the xz ultimate compressed file size is definitely smaller.
- ncmncm 5y agoIf your system experiences periods of greater and lesser load, then using the rest of whatever is its load capacity, during periods of lesser load, on further compressing its contents might be worth the bother. Perhaps better than stepping to a different compression algorithm, zstd has multiple levels of compression that might be used at different times. The advantage there is that the same decompression algorithm works for all. One might reasonably hope that decompression tables may be shared amongst multiple of the 64k raw blocks, to further squeeze usage.
- mayli 5y agoxzip wasn't an option for zfs.
- namibj 5y agoThe problem with xz is also partially that zstd decompresses far faster.