Hi Antonio, reports without details (e.g. command line, timings, how to reproduce, ...) are not worth our time. Especially when actively refusing any details.
Happy New Year ! Regards, Tim On 31.12.19 18:15, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote: > Dear all, > > Two weeks ago, John L. Males reported "serious design issues that cause > extremely serious consequences", but he refused to explain what issues > he had found. Later, in a private message he defined the issues as lzip > compressing much slower than gzip (literally "as in minutes vs days") > under certain circumstances that he didn't reveal. > > As Mr. Males stated that he has no desire to provide any further > information (not even the options that he passed to gzip and lzip), I'm > asking here if anybody has ever observed a behavior as the one described > by Mr. Males (lzip compressing about 1000 times slower than gzip). > > If you find such "slow-compressing data", please, tell me so that I can > at least document how to speed up compression is that case. > > As an example of what I'm *not* looking for, I once measured 'lzip -9' > compressing 56 times slower than 'gzip -9'. It happened with a system > log file, a kind of file that tends to be very compressible and slow to > compress. This is normal. 'lzip -9' uses a dictionary size 1024 times > larger than 'gzip -9'. Therefore it is expected to compress better and > be slower. In this case the "problem" can be "fixed" by using 'lzip -0', > which can compress these kind of files better and in about the same time > as 'gzip -6'. > > -rw-r--r-- 1 19368375 2009-02-12 02:06 warn > -rw-r--r-- 1 966530 2009-02-12 02:06 warn.gz > -rw-r--r-- 1 660487 2009-02-12 02:06 warn-0.lz > -rw-r--r-- 1 328203 2009-02-12 02:06 warn-9.lz > > > Thanks, > Antonio. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
