Hi Jody ! On 28-02-2013 12:36 Jody Bruchon <[email protected]> wrote: >Actually, I use lzop extensively in my company. It is hands down the
Please do not misunderstand. I don't vote against lzop. I'm voting for having that lzip in Busybox as another very effective compressor. I just wanted to say lzip has it's rights like lzop, another compressor not so widely used in Linux land ... but they are used! >fastest compression algorithm available in BusyBox in both directions, >and when you are more concerned with performance than compression >ratio (but still want decent compression) lzop is a fantastic tool. >It's the only compressor that is fast enough to squeeze additional >bandwidth out of network links (because compression on even a slower >modern PC is faster than the speed of a gigabit ethernet connection). >Piping a stream through lzop (especially with the -1 switch) is >practically free in computational terms, and nets a fair compression >ratio. Thx, for clarifying this. It shows that even compressors not used on main stream may have there benefits. >I can't be the only person who uses lzop in such a manner. Plus, on >embedded systems, the overhead is minimal and the RAM requirement to >use lzop is tiny (gzip is a beast by comparison), so it fits in very >well with the spirit of BusyBox. Do I tell you something suspicious, if I say I'm using lzop on a regular basis for the same purpose you mentioned? My Linux kernel even uses lzop decompression for kernel and intramfs, with noticable faster startup :) -- Harald _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
