Re: Bug#693859: ITP: pixz -- parallel, indexing version of xz
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")
> 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.