Stefan Westerfeld dixit:
>Now the problem is that for those files I cannot predict the size. Often they
>will be quite small, but they also could be 100 MB in size or more. So I use
>xz -9 to get the best compression.
>Would it be possible to not allocate/initialize all the memory at startup?
I think you mis-understood xz here.
xz always uses 674 MiB to compress at -9 level, no matter
the size of the input.
In real-world scenarios, I found 'xz -2e' the best; for
your case (where the data is uncompressed exactly once)
I'd say 'xz -2' or maybe 'xz -3'.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
“Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having
a peeing section in a swimming pool.”
-- Edward Burr
