|
| ▲ | nine_k 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Gzip is woefully old. Its only redeeming value is that it's already built into some old tools. Otherwise, use zstd, which is better and faster, both at compression and decompression. There's no reason to use gzip in anything new, except for backwards compatibility with something old. |
| |
| ▲ | duskwuff 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | One other redeeming quality that gzip/deflate does have is that its low memory requirements (~32 KB per stream). If you're running on an embedded device, or if you're serving a ton of compressed streams at the same time, this can be a meaningful benefit. | |
| ▲ | kergonath 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Otherwise, use zstd, which is better and faster Yes, I do. Zstd is my preferred solution nowadays. But gzip is not going anywhere as a fallback because there is a surprisingly high number of computers without a working libzstd. |
|
|
| ▲ | duskwuff 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| bzip2 is particularly slow because the transform it depends on (BWT2) is "intrinsically slow" - it depends on cache-unfriendly operations which can't easily be parallelized: https://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2021/03/faster-inverse-bwt.... |
|
| ▲ | sedatk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > the fact that you cannot get a valid bzip2 file by cat-ing 2 compressed files TIL. Now that's why gzip has a file header! But, tar.gz compresses even better, that's probably why it hasn't caught on. |
| |
| ▲ | pocksuppet 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | tar packs multiple files into one. If you concatenate two gzipped files and unzip them, you just get a concatenated file. | | |
| ▲ | sedatk 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah okay, I thought gzip would support decompressing multiple files that way. | | |
| ▲ | kergonath 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How it works is, if you have two files foo.gz and bar.gz, and cat foo.gz bar.gz > foobar.gz, then foobar.gz is a valid gzip file and uncompresses to a single file with the contents of foo and bar. It’s handy because it is very easy to just append stuff at the end of a compressed file without having to uncompress-append-recompress. It is a bit niche but I have a couple of use cases where it makes everything simpler. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | saidnooneever 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| the catting issue might be more an implementation of bzip program problem than algorithm (it could expect an array of compressed files). that would only be impossible if the program cannot reason about the length of data from file header, which again is technically not something about compression algo but rather file format its carried through. that being said, speed is important for compression so for systems like webservers etc its an easy sell ofc. very strong point (and smarter implementation in programs) for gzip |
| |
| ▲ | nine_k 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Bzip2 is great for files that are compressed once, get decompressed many times, and the size is important. A good example is a software release. | | |
| ▲ | pocksuppet 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | So is xz, or zstd, and the files are smaller. bzip2 disappeared from software releases when xz was widely available. gzip often remains, as the most compatible option, the FAT32 of compression algorithms. |
| |
| ▲ | joecool1029 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > the catting issue might be more an implementation of bzip program problem than algorithm (it could expect an array of compressed files). that would only be impossible if the program cannot reason about the length of data from file header, which again is technically not something about compression algo but rather file format its carried through. Long comment to just say: ‘I have no idea about what I’m writing about’ These compression algorithms do not have anything to do with filesystem structure. Anyway the reason you can’t cat together parts of bzip2 but you can with zstd (and gzip) is because zstd does everything in frames and everything in those frames can be decompressed separately (so you can seek and decompress parts). Bzip2 doesn’t do that. So like, another place bzip2 sucks ass is working with large archives because you need to seek the entire archive before you can decompress it and it makes situations without parity data way more likely to cause dataloss of the whole archive. Really, don’t use it unless you have a super specific use case and know the tradeoffs, for the average person it was great when we would spend the time compressing to save the time sending over dialup. |
|
|
| ▲ | stefan_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| bzip and gzip are both horrible, terribly slow. Wherever I see "gz" or "bz" I immediately rip that nonsense out for zstd. There is such a thing as a right choice, and zstd is it every time. |
| |
