<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for </title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.terzza.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.terzza.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:00:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux Compression Comparison (GZIP vs BZIP2 vs LZMA vs ZIP vs Compress) by BryanP</title>
		<link>http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/comment-page-1/#comment-17951</link>
		<dc:creator>BryanP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.terzza.com/?p=92#comment-17951</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the helpful post!
Quick note: Zip and gzip use the same compression algorithm (Lempel-Ziv) [1], so it is not surprising that they have similar results. The biggest functional difference is that zip will handle separate file while gzip works on a single file. [2] My understanding is that zip applies its compression algorithm to each file separately so you might expect different results between zip+tar and simply running zip on a directory tree. If there are lots of similarities between files, you can expect zip+tar (or gzip+tar) to produce a smaller archive than zip alone, since using tar, creates one big file allowing the algorithm to take advantage of similarities across files. The trade-off, though, is that zip allows you to uncompress the files individually so you could recover a single file from an archive without decompressing the entire thing.

Sources:
[1] gzip man file
[2] http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-zip-and-gzip/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the helpful post!<br />
Quick note: Zip and gzip use the same compression algorithm (Lempel-Ziv) [1], so it is not surprising that they have similar results. The biggest functional difference is that zip will handle separate file while gzip works on a single file. [2] My understanding is that zip applies its compression algorithm to each file separately so you might expect different results between zip+tar and simply running zip on a directory tree. If there are lots of similarities between files, you can expect zip+tar (or gzip+tar) to produce a smaller archive than zip alone, since using tar, creates one big file allowing the algorithm to take advantage of similarities across files. The trade-off, though, is that zip allows you to uncompress the files individually so you could recover a single file from an archive without decompressing the entire thing.</p>
<p>Sources:<br />
[1] gzip man file<br />
[2] <a href="http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-zip-and-gzip/" rel="nofollow">http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-zip-and-gzip/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux Compression Comparison (GZIP vs BZIP2 vs LZMA vs ZIP vs Compress) by EdgarPE</title>
		<link>http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/comment-page-1/#comment-15535</link>
		<dc:creator>EdgarPE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:46:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.terzza.com/?p=92#comment-15535</guid>
		<description>If you are looking for the best tool to archive things, than looks like the winner is bzip2: better compression (smaller file) than gzip while doing it faster. Yes, decompression is slow, but who cares, it we just archive things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you are looking for the best tool to archive things, than looks like the winner is bzip2: better compression (smaller file) than gzip while doing it faster. Yes, decompression is slow, but who cares, it we just archive things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux Compression Comparison (GZIP vs BZIP2 vs LZMA vs ZIP vs Compress) by Jens Bauer</title>
		<link>http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/comment-page-1/#comment-13922</link>
		<dc:creator>Jens Bauer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:51:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.terzza.com/?p=92#comment-13922</guid>
		<description>...When I think about it, it might be interesting to create two simple programs in C, for comparing:

1: a program that allocates a 1MB buffer, and then writes the contents of this (random-data) buffer to a file, until the file is the same size as the total size of the &#039;files to compress&#039;.

2: a program that allocates a 1MB buffer, and then reads the contents of all the &#039;files to compress&#039;.

The second program would probably not be spending exactly the same time as if for instance doing a cp -R * /dev/null; I believe that it might be quicker.

It&#039;s quite simple...
#include 
int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
{
    uint8_t *buffer;
    FILE *fp;
    size_t l;
    size_t s;

    s = 1024 * 1024;
    buffer = malloc(s);
    if(buffer)
    {
        fp = fopen(&quot;/tmp/testfile&quot;, &quot;w&quot;)
        if(fp)
        {
            l = 1234567890; /* hardcoded filesize (for this example) */
            while(l)
            {
                l = (l &gt; s) ? (l - s) : s;
                w = fwrite(buffer, sizeof(*buffer), s, fp);
                if(w != s)
                {
                    return(-1);
                }
            }
            fclose(fp);
            return(0);
        }
    }
    return(-1);
}

...Probably made a few boogs, but you get the idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;When I think about it, it might be interesting to create two simple programs in C, for comparing:</p>
<p>1: a program that allocates a 1MB buffer, and then writes the contents of this (random-data) buffer to a file, until the file is the same size as the total size of the &#8216;files to compress&#8217;.</p>
<p>2: a program that allocates a 1MB buffer, and then reads the contents of all the &#8216;files to compress&#8217;.</p>
<p>The second program would probably not be spending exactly the same time as if for instance doing a cp -R * /dev/null; I believe that it might be quicker.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s quite simple&#8230;<br />
#include<br />
int main(int argc, const char *argv[])<br />
{<br />
    uint8_t *buffer;<br />
    FILE *fp;<br />
    size_t l;<br />
    size_t s;</p>
<p>    s = 1024 * 1024;<br />
    buffer = malloc(s);<br />
    if(buffer)<br />
    {<br />
        fp = fopen(&#8220;/tmp/testfile&#8221;, &#8220;w&#8221;)<br />
        if(fp)<br />
        {<br />
            l = 1234567890; /* hardcoded filesize (for this example) */<br />
            while(l)<br />
            {<br />
                l = (l &gt; s) ? (l &#8211; s) : s;<br />
                w = fwrite(buffer, sizeof(*buffer), s, fp);<br />
                if(w != s)<br />
                {<br />
                    return(-1);<br />
                }<br />
            }<br />
            fclose(fp);<br />
            return(0);<br />
        }<br />
    }<br />
    return(-1);<br />
}</p>
<p>&#8230;Probably made a few boogs, but you get the idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux Compression Comparison (GZIP vs BZIP2 vs LZMA vs ZIP vs Compress) by Jens Bauer</title>
		<link>http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/comment-page-1/#comment-13783</link>
		<dc:creator>Jens Bauer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.terzza.com/?p=92#comment-13783</guid>
		<description>Great work!!
One thing I think might be relevant to add, is a plain &#039;cp&#039; on the same system that these tests were performed.
That should (probably) set the &#039;100%&#039; for speed and size.
It would probably more or less take the harddisk &#039;fragmentation&#039; into account too.
-Well, nothing is certain, because CP *could* be slower, as it&#039;s writing more bytes to the disk than the compression programs, so a quick compression program would have a chance of outperforming CP, if the algorithm is simple.

I look forward to seing nanozip results too. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great work!!<br />
One thing I think might be relevant to add, is a plain &#8216;cp&#8217; on the same system that these tests were performed.<br />
That should (probably) set the &#8217;100%&#8217; for speed and size.<br />
It would probably more or less take the harddisk &#8216;fragmentation&#8217; into account too.<br />
-Well, nothing is certain, because CP *could* be slower, as it&#8217;s writing more bytes to the disk than the compression programs, so a quick compression program would have a chance of outperforming CP, if the algorithm is simple.</p>
<p>I look forward to seing nanozip results too. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux Compression Comparison (GZIP vs BZIP2 vs LZMA vs ZIP vs Compress) by Apurv Nigam</title>
		<link>http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/comment-page-1/#comment-11990</link>
		<dc:creator>Apurv Nigam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:52:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.terzza.com/?p=92#comment-11990</guid>
		<description>A very good article. Although it did not deal with the algorithms ( which is actually good), it was able to convey in a clear way the facts that we must keep in mind before choosing these tools.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very good article. Although it did not deal with the algorithms ( which is actually good), it was able to convey in a clear way the facts that we must keep in mind before choosing these tools.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux Compression Comparison (GZIP vs BZIP2 vs LZMA vs ZIP vs Compress) by Talespin</title>
		<link>http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/comment-page-1/#comment-11333</link>
		<dc:creator>Talespin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:39:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.terzza.com/?p=92#comment-11333</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the post, Its very useful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the post, Its very useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux Compression Comparison (GZIP vs BZIP2 vs LZMA vs ZIP vs Compress) by Alessio</title>
		<link>http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/comment-page-1/#comment-11127</link>
		<dc:creator>Alessio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:08:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.terzza.com/?p=92#comment-11127</guid>
		<description>I found NanoZip with &quot;lzhds_parallels_extra&quot; and &quot;standard memory usage&quot; settings greatly outperforms all the above mentioned algorithms in terms of compression ratio and speed (four times faster than RAR compression with 10% better ratio in my experience) even in it&#039;s alpha state. Try it at http://www.nanozip.net/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found NanoZip with &#8220;lzhds_parallels_extra&#8221; and &#8220;standard memory usage&#8221; settings greatly outperforms all the above mentioned algorithms in terms of compression ratio and speed (four times faster than RAR compression with 10% better ratio in my experience) even in it&#8217;s alpha state. Try it at <a href="http://www.nanozip.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nanozip.net/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux Compression Comparison (GZIP vs BZIP2 vs LZMA vs ZIP vs Compress) by Good Comparison of Common Compression Tools &#124; The Linux Daily</title>
		<link>http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/comment-page-1/#comment-3923</link>
		<dc:creator>Good Comparison of Common Compression Tools &#124; The Linux Daily</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.terzza.com/?p=92#comment-3923</guid>
		<description>[...] http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux Compression Comparison (GZIP vs BZIP2 vs LZMA vs ZIP vs Compress) by Jon</title>
		<link>http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/comment-page-1/#comment-3373</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:17:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.terzza.com/?p=92#comment-3373</guid>
		<description>as far as know, 7z use LMZA algorithm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>as far as know, 7z use LMZA algorithm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux Compression Comparison (GZIP vs BZIP2 vs LZMA vs ZIP vs Compress) by Linuxaria Programmi di compressione su Linux : Linuxaria</title>
		<link>http://blog.terzza.com/linux-compression-comparison-gzip-vs-bzip2-vs-lzma-vs-zip-vs-compress/comment-page-1/#comment-3344</link>
		<dc:creator>Linuxaria Programmi di compressione su Linux : Linuxaria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.terzza.com/?p=92#comment-3344</guid>
		<description>[...] un altro sito, ho trovato test molto simili che includo per completezza, i test sono stati realizzati [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] un altro sito, ho trovato test molto simili che includo per completezza, i test sono stati realizzati [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

