Hi! Just some example for my question:
$ ll 125.db; time lzip 125.db; ll 125.db.lz; lzip -d 125.db.lz -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 13574639 Mar 12 07:18 125.db real 0m13.661s user 0m13.529s sys 0m0.131s -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 11515382 Mar 12 07:18 125.db.lz
$ ll 125.db; time lzip -1 125.db; ll 125.db.lz; lzip -d 125.db.lz -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 13574639 Mar 12 07:18 125.db real 0m8.585s user 0m8.522s sys 0m0.062s -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 11672937 Mar 12 07:18 125.db.lz
$ ll 125.db; time xz 125.db; ll 125.db.xz; xz -d 125.db.xz -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 13574639 Mar 12 07:18 125.db real 0m8.046s user 0m7.873s sys 0m0.136s -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 11514524 Mar 12 07:18 125.db.xz
$ ll 125.db; time xz -1 125.db; ll 125.db.xz; xz -d 125.db.xz -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 13574639 Mar 12 07:18 125.db real 0m3.028s user 0m2.996s sys 0m0.034s -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 11869128 Mar 12 07:18 125.db.xz
$ ll 125.db; time gzip 125.db; ll 125.db.gz; gzip -d 125.db.gz -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 13574639 Mar 12 07:18 125.db real 0m0.871s user 0m0.833s sys 0m0.038s -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 12105904 Mar 12 07:18 125.db.gz
$ ll 125.db; time gzip -1 125.db; ll 125.db.gz; gzip -d 125.db.gz -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 13574639 Mar 12 07:18 125.db real 0m0.802s user 0m0.786s sys 0m0.016s -rw-rw---- 1 tlange tlange 12135722 Mar 12 07:18 125.db.gz
It seems that while xz and lzip are comparable with the default setting, they differ much in using -1. xz becomes quite fast while still having a quite good compression, whereas lzip becomes faster but the time_needed per compression_result ratio is much worse?
Cheers, Tino _______________________________________________ Lzip-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lzip-bug
