3 ms·
I think you're missing the point that in terms of tradeoffs people are willing to make: absolute compression ratio loses to 80% of the compression ability with
by tepitoperrito 4y ago
I think you're missing the point that in terms of tradeoffs people are willing to make: absolute compression ratio loses to 80% of the compression ability with big gains to decompression speed (aka include round trip cpu time if you want something to agree / disagree with, we're not talking about straight compression ratios).
Arch Linux is a case study in a large distributor of open source software that switched from xz compressed binaries to zstd and they didn't do it for teh lulz[0].
[0] https://archlinux.org/news/now-using-zstandard-instead-of-xz-for-package-compression/ https://archlinux.org/news/now-using-zstandard-instead-of-xz...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jmillikin 4y agoI'm not missing the point. I'm responding to the thread, which is about whether XZ offers better compression ratios than Zstd. Whether it's faster in some, many, or most cases isn't really relevant.
- tepitoperrito 4y agoYup and how much better is about 1%. "zstd and xz trade blows in their compression ratio. Recompressing all packages to zstd with our options yields a total ~0.8% increase in package size on all of our packages combined, but the decompression time for all packages saw a ~1300% speedup."