Why can’t conclude with zstd’s ram use deficiency would be on a single or double core machine.Ībout “free space to distribute software” So on a lesser machine than the testers don’t expect the speeds to be as spectacular. 2sec on an 8 core is 16sec on a single core, and the inverse for MB/s, 10MB/s is equal time to 80MB/s with multicore. So on a single or double core machine (single thread) the effects should be analogous to multiplying the speed by the inverse of your lack of threads. i7 8 thread machine) that the speed is due to multithreading. Note where on column 4 the % of cpu utilized (on a 4th gen. The next test was with a much larger file/archive – this time using linux 5.1-rc5 In case you are wondering I was reporting that arch nearly silently started using this facebook compression algorithm on packaging and here is their own test data to support this decision:Ī different set of tests about more compression utilitiesįrom this article that goes into a more general (many compression tools compared) but in more in-depth comparison (not the ideal for arch’s use tests run above, striving to make zstd look good) we isolated two tables on xz and zstd. My article (a link to it) was removed from r/linux yesterday for no good reason, 100% linux related material, and as I complained I was permanently banned from posting there. So we can conclude that arch has an abundance of computing/building/packaging apparatus, with truck loads of spare ram to parallely process many packages. Compression software should primarily be judged on their ability to compress, and zstd fails miserably against this 45 year old trusty switchblade called xz. Zstd (gang) software also relies heavily on very current powerful server grade machines to provide the benefit of speed, to make up what it lacks in quality. XZ still wins in size, loses on time, while ZSTD is a huge loser in memory use while compressing decompressing is comparable and equally fast. Here is the comparative numbers reported by Arch devs on which they based their decision to use this fast but resource hungry compression tool.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |