693
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago
[-] gamma@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago
[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago

zstd may be newer and faster but lzma still compresses more

[-] gamma@programming.dev 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year ago

Nice data. Thanks for reminding me why I prefer zstd

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

*Thank you engineers who happen to be working at Facebook

[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 points 1 year 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
693 points (97.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

32316 readers
951 users here now

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

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS