NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

use Perl

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

In my book, it's been dead for years (Score:2)

by Mr. Muskrat (4572)

BZip2 has always been too slow for my usage. Most of the time I simply rely on gzip even though it cannot compress as much. Has lz really come that far and if so, how is the speed?
lrzip is even better (Score:1)

by Ed Avis (3134)

I like lrzip [kolivas.org] which does a sorting step before LZMA compression, usually giving even better space/speed tradeoff.
XZ [tukaani.org] is the other plain LZMA-based compressor; it's not clear why both it and lzip need to exist, but hopefully one of them will evolve to support both file formats and thus become the winner.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
gzip (Score:2)

by bart (450)

So, by the same measure... why exactly is gzip still around?
- Re: (Score:1)
  
  by Alias (5735)
  
  gzip is fast, easy to implement, and uses almost no memory.
  It's easily streamable and you get great bang for your buck so you can do it easily on the fly.
  bzip2 is heavier, a lot slower, and only adds a fraction additional reduction (10-20%).
  lzma is asymmetrical. It's a LOT more expensive on the compression side, and both sides use a lot more memory. But the decompression code is very small and FASTER than bzip2.
  So as long as you have memory (desktop, server) it's much smaller than bzip2, and it's faster as