Daniel Alley wrote:
>>ry xz -9, it should be better than zstd. It will take longer to compress,
>>but should actually be FASTER (!) to decompress, which is what really
>>matters.
>
> Please provide data - any data - to support this claim, because it flies
> completely in the face of every benchmark the internet has to offer,
> including the one Sirius performed below.
In any case, according to Sirius' benchmark, it looks like zstd -19 actually
beats even xz -9 at compression ratio (while being worlds faster to
decompress), so it looks like a good alternative. It takes 3 times longer to
compress, but who cares, since that happens only once per compose, on one
computer, vs. millions of Fedora users having to download and decompress the
file. The tradeoff should be obvious.
(You can also see that the decompression time does in fact go down from xz
-4 to -6 to -7, then stays constant on -7, -8, -9 where little to no further
size reduction is reached. This is consistent with what I explained in my
previous reply to your post above. But of course zstd at any level is about
6 times faster to decompress than xz at any level.)
Given the benchmark results on one of the actually affected files, I now
think zstd -19 is what we want to use, not xz -9.
Kevin Kofler
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
