3 ms·
> Just let Pack do its thing, and you will be happy Well, no. Sometimes i want maximum compression while having a lot of CPU and wall clock time. And sometimes
by out_of_protocol 3y ago
> Just let Pack do its thing, and you will be happy
Well, no. Sometimes i want maximum compression while having a lot of CPU and wall clock time. And sometimes being fast is more important than compression level. Also managing server utilization is needed. Level thing is there for a reason
- OttoCoddo 3y agoThen `--press=hard` would be the choice for you.
- out_of_protocol 3y agoThis is not a binary choice, actual level of effort is required. I've seen many times people fine tuning compression levels in all kinds of automation scenarios
- out_of_protocol 3y agoAlso, zstd covers a lot of ground between super fast compression and good compression ratio https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebook/zstd/master/doc/images/DCspeed5.png https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebook/zstd/master/doc/i...
- OttoCoddo 3y agoThank you for the notes. I am well aware of the levels and Pack uses custom configuration to match its inner design. Maybe more level come, or maybe not. But to be clear, Pack supports any valid Zstandard content, and this levels we are discussing are about Pack CLI chosen for better user experience. Any other client can produce and store any valid content for chose level or configuration, and other clients can read it.
- out_of_protocol 3y agoThere are many different usecases, and each one have different set of requirements. E.g. - for end-user facing cli: support as much conventions as possible (-v --version, -h --help, other options similar to other compressors), sane defaults - for automatic tasks like making backups via cron: piping, correct exit codes, level of effort configuration, silent modes for reduced logging. Second one is likely to fly first, can be used isolated on company level if file format is stable