zpaq VS LZ4

I will assume that the average effective broadband connection is about 20 MB/s, and both xz and zstd decompressions are faster than the download under this assumption. But there are lesser known compression algorithms that are more efficient in terms of compression ratio for this target decompression speed, like zpaq [1], which are rarely considered as alternatives. So multiple factors exist here and I believe... - Source: Hacker News / about 1 month ago

My best bet is some data corrupted when plugging into windows. If it still works in windows I strongly recommend you backup important data on your drive. You can use 7z to compress, or zpaq which can achieve incredible compression rate in some cases. Source: 11 months ago

Yes, you can find more information on how it works on the zpaq's author website http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html. Source: over 1 year ago

There was a recent essay about the use of the QOI format for software/game assets. They're somewhat bigger than PNGs; however, I discovered that they compress really good with ZPAQ. Source: over 1 year ago

But when you need high compression rates, why not use something more innovative? ZPAQ is amazing - Journaling archiver for incremental backups There are plugins for total commander to ease managing, or gui linked at Matt Mahoney's page It offers better compression ratio than both Winrar and 7-Zip, for even more RAM and time to compress. The amazing part is not wasting energy and storage space for the same... Source: over 1 year ago

LZ4[1] intentionally compresses worse than Deflate—where Deflate is LZ77 with Huffman, LZ4 is just LZ77. It’s “we’re saturating Gigabit Ethernet and have some compute left over” compression, not “we need to squeeze our backups as much as possible” compression. If filtering+LZ4 does better than Deflate, then you’ve chosen the filter well. Curiously, for some kinds of binary serialization a good filter in... - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago

It doesn't destroy performance for the simple reason that nowadays memory access has higher latency than pure compute. If you need to use compute to produce some data to be stored in memory, your overall throughput could very well be faster than without compression. There have been a large amount of innovation on fast compression in recent years. Traditional compression tools like gzip or xz are geared towards... - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago

Just looked it up [1] > LZ4 is lossless compression algorithm, providing compression speed > 500 MB/s per core (>0.15 Bytes/cycle). It features an extremely fast decoder, with speed in multiple GB/s per core (~1 Byte/cycle). [1]: https://lz4.github.io/lz4/. - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago

Planet: weekly As you can see the planet file has the LZ4 extension, this is a compression-algorithm which a very good speed/size ratio and reduces the size with about 20-25 GB. It. Source: almost 2 years ago

I found this interesting dataLZ4 HC (r101) -9) increases transfer speed by about 22%, while only losing a 10% performance on decompression. That's a 12% performance increase overall, not bad! Source: about 2 years ago