[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Lzip-bug] performance: gzip, lzip, xz
From: |
John Reiser |
Subject: |
[Lzip-bug] performance: gzip, lzip, xz |
Date: |
Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:59:18 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090922 Fedora/3.0-2.7.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4 |
Hi,
I ran a comparison of gzip, lzip-1.7, and xz-4.999.9-0.1.beta.
lzip has an advantage in smaller memory size needed for decompression
(in this case 8MiB for lzip vs 64MiB for xz)
but xz is better than lzip in compression speed and compression size.
xz offers filters today; lzip may have filters in the future.
The compiled size of lzip is about half the size of xz.
lzip has a smooth cost as requested effort increases;
xz has an unusually large jump in compress time from -2 to -3 effort.
Does lzip offer other advantages? What is the comparision
for detecting and recovering damaged files?
The input file is a initramfs for booting Fedora 12.
compress
time size type ("-N" compression)
------ -------- --------
26856448 .orig
gzip-1.3.12-11
0.851s 12170822 .gzip.2
0.991s 12018271 .gzip.3
1.099s 11687436 .gzip.4
1.342s 11466564 .gzip.5
1.885s 11370564 .gzip.6
2.336s 11344104 .gzip.7
3.973s 11318593 .gzip.8
5.665s 11306990 .gzip.9
lzip-1.7
10.762s 8936001 .lzip.2
12.021s 8814468 .lzip.3
14.385s 8626471 .lzip.4
17.499s 8527765 .lzip.5
20.644s 8474297 .lzip.6
22.743s 8444650 .lzip.7
23.971s 8445876 .lzip.8
25.686s 8433049 .lzip.9
xz-4.999.9-0.1.beta
4.149s 9441928 .xz.2
14.459s 8683376 .xz.3
15.317s 8558264 .xz.4
16.372s 8497424 .xz.5
19.180s 8417640 .xz.6
19.789s 8387736 .xz.7
20.112s 8371552 .xz.8
20.152s 8371552 .xz.9
--
- [Lzip-bug] performance: gzip, lzip, xz,
John Reiser <=