Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>> A few more examples below. I think lzma isn't the right thing for the
>>>> archive. p7zip seems much faster, needs a lot less ram and compression
>>>> is similar.
> ..
>>> Should you be using the "-9" option? The lzma help output says this:
>>>
>>> -3 .. -9 good to excellent compression. -7 is the default.
>>> --fast alias for -1
>>> --best alias for -9 (usually *not* what you want)
>>
>> Feel free to try other options.
>
> Er, I was just pointing out that your conclusion ("lzma isn't the right
> thing ... p7zip seems must faster and needs a lot less ram") is rather
> dodgy because you used an option that lzma specifically warns against
> using. From my own experiencd I know that lzma consumes much more
> memory with -9 than with the default setting.
>
> So though I'm certainly in no position to repeat these tests myself, I
> think others should be wary of your results.
>
> -Miles
Why can't you run the test yourself? The linux-2.6.18 source is freely
available so you can use the same test data. The times might not
compare but compression ratio and memory used will.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
