On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:20:11PM -0400, David Bremner wrote: > * Package name : pixz
> So why another parallel xz in the archive. > > - - This one seems about 25% faster compressing in some simple tests I > ran (compressing a 2.7G file with 6 threads, maximum compression). You mean, 25% faster while taking 500% more CPU? Or "25% faster than parallel implementation X, a few hundred percent than xz"? > Decompression seems to be a wash between xz, pxz, and pixz on files > produced by xz. On files produced by pixz, pixz is noticably faster > > - - More importantly it does not seem to suffer from (because of being > "indexable") > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686502 > > i.e. busybox xz also works on the output of pixz If busybox unxz fails to handle concatenated streams, that's a rather severe bug. I'm not sure if the xz format specification mentions this explicitely, but that's a rather widely used idiom among Unix compressors. -- How to squander your resources: those silly Swedes have a sauce named "hovmästarsås", the best thing ever to put on cheese, yet they waste it solely on mere salmon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121121024512.ga6...@angband.pl
