On Sunday 06 January 2008, David Schwartz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the 7-Zip archiver has recently become very popular because of > > its good compression rate; > > f.e. recent snapshot is about 34% smaller when packed with 7z > > compared to tar.gz: > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2484981 Jan 5 17:28 openssl-SNAP-20080105.7z > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3781438 Jan 5 17:27 openssl-SNAP-20080105.tar.gz > > I'm not sure if the popularity of 7-Zip is high enough to justify the > effort. But the benefit is significant. I ran some tests of an OpenSSL > build using default settings for all compressors. It looked like this > (higher is better):
i really dont think the 7z archive format is widely accepted in any sort of numbers that would convince posting of a .7z archive. however, i would point out that lzma (the compression algorithm that the 7z archive format employs) is gaining traction in the open source world via the lzma-utils package. this provides a set of utilities with the same general interface as gzip/bzip2. for example, the autotool packages have integrated native support for it as have a number of other core projects in the GNU world. it also has the advantage of working seamlessly with existing utilities: gzip -c -d openssl-SNAP-20080105.tar.gz | tar xf bzip2 -c -d openssl-SNAP-20080105.tar.bz2 | tar xf lzma -c -d openssl-SNAP-20080105.tar.lzma | tar xf people know `tar`, they dont know `7z` 3781438 openssl-SNAP-20080105.tar.gz 2495545 openssl-SNAP-20080105.tar.lzma 2484981 openssl-SNAP-20080105.7z looks to me like tar+lzma is the way to go, not 7z -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
