View Single Post
Old 2017-05-09, 19:42   #68
rudi_m's Avatar
Jul 2005

18210 Posts

Originally Posted by Madpoo View Post
I don't know what's standard on Linux distros lately, but GZ is pretty weak.
The gz format is not worse than zip. Both are using the Deflate compression method. It's strong regarding decompression speed. Reading gz compressed files from HD and decompress them is usually faster than reading uncompressed files. The difference between zip and gzip is more about the container format. Zip can handle directory trees and gzip only single files. But for directories we have tar already since 1979.

BTW Something must be wrong with your test, using gzip -9 I get

6,282,049 gz -9

Originally Posted by Madpoo View Post
I didn't test XZ since I didn't really care... LOL
You should have ;) xz uses lzma like 7z:

1,664,956 xz -6
1,650,480 xz -9

The xz and gzip clients have almost the same, perfectly compatible command line interface, see

Both inherited from POSIX industry standard "compress"

That's why most tools can handle .xz, .gz and bzip2 files transparently to the user.

Please leave us UNIX users alone with toys like 7z, rar, zip and friends ;)

Last fiddled with by rudi_m on 2017-05-09 at 20:05
rudi_m is offline   Reply With Quote