AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Lzip vs xz3/20/2023 ![]() Gzip is known to be relatively fast when compared to LZMA2 and bzip2. Tar just creates an uncompressed archive, the compression is then applied later on. (And even xz -0 needs more than gzip -9).Ģ: F21 System Wide Change: lbzip2 as default bzip2 implementationįirst of all, this question is not directly related to tar. But xz -9 (as, e.g., used for Linux kernel tarballs) uses much more than bzip -9. However none of these are relevant for kernel distribution)ġ: In archive size, xz -3 is around bzip -9. Newer versions of xz now have an (optional) block mode which allows data recovery after the point of corruption and parallel compression and decompression. (There are some specific scenarios where a good bzip2 implementation may be preferable to xz: bzip2 can compresses a file with lots of zeros and genome DNA sequences better than xz. I didn't attempt to replicate the results, and I suspect some of it has changed (mostly, I expect xz has improved, as its the newest.) I looked at compression comparisons in a blog post. There isn't really a realistic combination of factors that'd get you to pick bzip2. Want to save download time and/or bandwidth: xz.Need to decompress minimal tools available: gzip.Given, not very likely when talking about kernel sources. Need to decompress on a machine with very limited memory (So, both gzip and xz format archives are posted, allowing you to pick: It, however-at the compression settings typically used-requires more memory to decompress and is somewhat less widespread. Compatibility (how wide-spread the decompression program is)Ĭompression memory & CPU requirements aren't very important, because you can use a large fast machine for that, and you only have to do it once.Ĭompared to bzip2, xz has a better compression ratio and lower (better) decompression time.Compression ratio (i.e., how small the compressor makes the data).If all those reasons were still insufficient, Ubuntu dropped legacy lzma-utils from its repository.For distributing archives over the Internet, the following things are generally a priority: It also has wrappers for scripts still using LZMA-Utils. lzma files, they are considered a legacy format.Īs for even keeping LZMA-Utils around: don't. xz format allows you to specify compression algorithms, and filters, so. "practical reasons" are a self-evident, and significant, reason to use XZ-Utils. The determining factor might not be compression, although ironically it was for this example. This should make transition from LZMA Utils to XZ Utils relatively easy. ![]() lzma format used by LZMA Utils, and can also emulate the command line tools of LZMA Utils. Users of LZMA Utils should move to XZ Utils. LZMA Utils are no longer developed, although critical bugs may be fixed as long as fixing them doesn't require huge changes to the code. LZMA Utils are legacy data compression software with high compression ratio. The last LZMA-Utils release was, and discontinued. The author of both Utils has said publicly, users should transition to XZ-Utils ≥ 5.00. lzma files were known to be replaced completely by. I disagree with conclusion, "OK using either", as it was inappropriate. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |