[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz
|
From: |
Mike Frysinger |
|
Subject: |
Re: Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz |
|
Date: |
Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:27:17 -0500 |
|
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) |
On Tuesday 06 March 2012 04:57:27 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz:
> - xz decompresses more quickly
is that true ? i thought last i looked, they were close, but gzip was
consistently slightly faster. maybe if the bottleneck is more I/O than
CPU/memory, xz would win ?
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, (continued)
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, Warren Young, 2012/03/02
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, Eric Blake, 2012/03/02
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, John Hawkinson, 2012/03/02
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, Warren Young, 2012/03/02
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, Russ Allbery, 2012/03/02
- Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz, Jim Meyering, 2012/03/06
- Re: Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz, Bob Friesenhahn, 2012/03/06
- Re: Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz,
Mike Frysinger <=
- Re: Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz, Jim Meyering, 2012/03/06
- Re: Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz, Mike Frysinger, 2012/03/06
- Re: Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz, Russ Allbery, 2012/03/06
Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, James K. Lowden, 2012/03/02
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, Mike Frysinger, 2012/03/02
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, James K. Lowden, 2012/03/03
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, Mike Frysinger, 2012/03/03
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, James K. Lowden, 2012/03/03
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, Mike Frysinger, 2012/03/03
- Re: Autoconf distributions and xz dependency, James K. Lowden, 2012/03/03