Hello Andreas, * Andreas Jellinghaus wrote on Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 09:37:13PM CEST: > isn't xz extremely sloooow with -9? > maybe it wasn't a bug, bit intentionally not used, > as that huge extra amount of time doesn't result in > that many bytes saved.
Well, does somebody have numbers (memory, time, compression) as to what is reasonable? > is the compression level configureable somehow? Not ATM, but if necessary we could change that. Thanks, Ralf
