I’m one of the seeming few who paid to register it back in the Win9x days. Turned out that the key also works for the non-free Linux version (think I only ever bothered to set that up once). These days gzipped tarballs or squashfs with zstd are my go-tos. The former for speed with source trees or such, and the latter for filesystem backups or larger directories, because loop mounting it is so fast and convenient.
That can’t be right, all reports I have read about comparing xz with gzip tells me that xz will have better compression but at a slower speed than gzip.
Have you run a test of gzip at the same compression level with the same data?
I don’t doubt that xz will be smaller, I doubt it will be quicker.
I’m one of the seeming few who paid to register it back in the Win9x days. Turned out that the key also works for the non-free Linux version (think I only ever bothered to set that up once). These days gzipped tarballs or squashfs with zstd are my go-tos. The former for speed with source trees or such, and the latter for filesystem backups or larger directories, because loop mounting it is so fast and convenient.
What the fuck did you just call me?
git gudyour mom gave me zstd in my tarballs
And Jia Tan xz’d in your back door?
xz -0is faster than gzip and has a higher compression ratio.That can’t be right, all reports I have read about comparing xz with gzip tells me that xz will have better compression but at a slower speed than gzip.
Have you run a test of gzip at the same compression level with the same data?
I don’t doubt that xz will be smaller, I doubt it will be quicker.
This is actually stated in the xz man page:
-0 is sometimes faster than gzip -9 while compressing much better.With a random test file on my system,
xz -0was 3 times as fast while achieving the same compression asgzip -6.