zstd may be newer and faster but lzma still compresses more

As always, you gotta know both so that you can pick the right tool for the job.

Gamma
link
fedilink
English
11
edit-2
1Y

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.

the_weez
link
fedilink
61Y

Nice data. Thanks for reminding me why I prefer zstd

damn I did not know zstd was that good. Never thought I’d hear myself say this unironically but thanks Facebook

Gamma
link
fedilink
English
51Y

*Thank you engineers who happen to be working at Facebook

Very true, good point

Create a post

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

Rules:

  • Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
  • No NSFW content.
  • Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
  • 1 user online
  • 18 users / day
  • 117 users / week
  • 455 users / month
  • 2.2K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 1.69K Posts
  • 37.2K Comments
  • Modlog