28.02.2013 04:22, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote: [] > The history in a nutshell: "In 2008, Antonio Diaz released lzip, which uses a > proper container format with checksums and magic numbers instead of the raw > LZMA data stream, providing a complete Unix-style solution for using LZMA. > Nevertheless, LZMA Utils was extended to have similar features and then > renamed to XZ Utils"[3].
Oh. I remember that 2008 year (or a bit before) when kernel folks discussed which format to use for kernel.org archives and leaned towards lzma, and I pointed out that it does not have any checksums. I guess it was a starting point for xz and lzip. For some reason I haven't heard of lzip at all until now. I remember when xz come out, I looked at it and noticed its complexity and lack of stable format, exactly as you describe, but that didn't rang any bells for me and eventually it become a widely known and accepted format. So, I become curious how lzip behaves. And I immediately gave it a very quick try. CPU: AMD AthlonII X2 260, 3.2GHz (2 cores) file: 1Gb (1073741824 bytes), an image of a small linux virtual machine. .lz: 273684804, real 11m53.112s, user 20m30.563s .xz: 266670056, real 11m8.190s, user 10m45.835s This is the default compression level. WOW. So, 2-thread plzip is about TWO TIMES solwer than single-thread xz when compressing, making parallel plzip on 2 cores to be as fast as xz. lz produces slightly larger result. Are you sure the stream and compression algorithm are the same? :) Thanks, /mjt _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
