694
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago
[-] gamma@programming.dev 13 points 2 years ago
[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago

zstd may be newer and faster but lzma still compresses more

[-] gamma@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Thought I'd check on the Linux source tree tar. zstd -19 vs lzma -9:

❯ ls -lh
total 1,6G
-rw-r--r-- 1 pmo pmo 1,4G Sep 13 22:16 linux-6.6-rc1.tar
-rw-r--r-- 1 pmo pmo 128M Sep 13 22:16 linux-6.6-rc1.tar.lzma
-rw-r--r-- 1 pmo pmo 138M Sep 13 22:16 linux-6.6-rc1.tar.zst

About +8% compared to lzma. Decompression time though:

zstd -d -k -T0 *.zst  0,68s user 0,46s system 162% cpu 0,700 total
lzma -d -k -T0 *.lzma  4,75s user 0,51s system 99% cpu 5,274 total

Yeah, I'm going with zstd all the way.

[-] jodanlime@midwest.social 6 points 2 years ago

Nice data. Thanks for reminding me why I prefer zstd

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 2 years ago

damn I did not know zstd was that good. Never thought I'd hear myself say this unironically but thanks Facebook

[-] gamma@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago

*Thank you engineers who happen to be working at Facebook

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 2 years ago

Very true, good point

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
694 points (97.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

39528 readers
102 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS