7 ms·
From their own benchmarks it seems more like bzip3 is geared towards a different compression/speed trade-off than bzip2, rather than an unambiguous all-around i
by denzquix 4y ago
From their own benchmarks it seems more like bzip3 is geared towards a different compression/speed trade-off than bzip2, rather than an unambiguous all-around improvement. Am I misreading it?
- once_inc 4y agoThat's what I took out of it too. Sacrificed a bit of speed and a lot of memory for a smaller output size. edit: ah, bzip3 is parallelizable, while bzip2 isn't. That alone is enough for me to be able to claim 'faster'.
- thilog 4y agobzip2 can exploit concurrency through pbzip2, can't it?
- klauspost 4y agoIt is kind of a hack for decompression, where you look forward in the stream for a block signature, and try decompressing from there. In practice it works, but it isn't pretty ;)
- gjvc 4y agosee also: lbzip2 (context: I have had a situation where files created by pbzip2 on linux were not able to be decompressed with some library on .NET, but using lbzip2, they were. I never looked into the details.)
- Klasiaster 4y agoCan't agree more, lbzip2 is the go-to tool for dealing with bzip2 compression and decompression, it's a whole lot of faster than bzip2 which is single-threaded!