Adam Borowski wrote: > If you want a fair comparison: > -rw-r--r-- 1 kilobyte kilobyte 98826240 Jun 16 20:26 octave-4.2.1.tar > -rw-r--r-- 1 kilobyte kilobyte 15826565 Jul 7 17:13 octave-4.2.1.tar.lz > -rw-r--r-- 1 kilobyte kilobyte 15174400 Jul 7 17:13 octave-4.2.1.tar.xz > > xz wins by 4.2%, with the same settings.
Those are not the same settings, and you can see the reason why in this benchmark: http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/lzip_benchmark.html ""xz -9" uses a dictionary size twice as large as "lzip -9". This makes it appear as if xz could compress large files a little more than lzip." If you pass to lzip the same dictionary size used by xz -9, then lzip wins. -rw-r--r-- 1 15167441 Jul 7 22:17 octave-4.2.1.tar.lz and so the comparison is fair enough : ) Maria Bisen PS: I'm sorry, I'm aware that the message appears misplaced.
