4 ms·
With tar.gz, there is not much of a benefit: the window size is only 32KB. Now with LZMA, the situation is much different.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
With tar.gz, there is not much of a benefit: the window size is only 32KB. Now with LZMA, the situation is much different.
- masklinn 4y agoThat can still be a significant benefit if the files are small, which is not uncommon. The 512 bytes header is a bit of an annoyance there (especially compared to zip’s 30+file name) but not that much. And then, obviously, one of the advantages of tar is you can compress with whatever you want.
- IshKebab 4y agoThen just compress every 10MB or whatever independently. Probably a good idea for parallelism anyway.
- masklinn 4y agoWhat are you talking about?
- IshKebab 4y agoYou two were debating the benefits of `tar.gz` style solid compression vs zip style independent compression of files. Zip allows random access while solid compression will give slightly better compression for small similar files. I was pointing out that you can have the best of both worlds by catting all the files together like `tar` but then compressing it in chunks instead of as one big stream. Plus compressing it in chunks allows you to decompress it in parallel.