Le Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 11:55:34PM -0400, Nick Holland ecrivait :
~/comptest $ time lzma e comp39d.tar comp39d.tar.lz
7m5.59s real 6m54.79s user 0m0.59s system
(maximum RAM used: around 80M, I think)
Comments:
rzip and lzma turned in some good numbers (REALLY good numbers),
The lz
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Nick Holland wrote:
Oh? Where are your numbers?
Here's a benchmark about gzip vs lzma vs bzip2:
http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks
Lasse Collin is also working on a more "sane"
tool for the algorithm but I don't have enough
information about that so if someone is intere
curiosity got the best of me here. Found I had a machine with several
major compression programs on it, and while this tired argument isn't
worth this, I found it the idea of a comparison interesting, so I
thought I'd share...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you obviously missed the part about the pre
And did you see any code?
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 08:16:06PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > you obviously missed the part about the preposterously slow compression
> times.
>
> Well..
> You missed my point. I know you don`t crosscompile but you can compress
> all Archives on a stronger Compu
> you obviously missed the part about the preposterously slow compression
times.
Well..
You missed my point. I know you don`t crosscompile but you can compress
all Archives on a stronger Computer. So a VAX isn`t the best hardware to
start with LZMA compressing. Yes..
Something else: You compress
On 4/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Long time ago I read about LZMA at undeadly.org.
> I just wanted to ask if somebody realy works on a BSD-Implementation or not.
> Because LZMA-Compressions are realy awesome and for the decompression it
> needs less time and less memory the
6 matches
Mail list logo
