You mean 7zip?
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 01:13:52PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On 8/12/06, Ken Snider <ksnider at flarn.com> wrote: > >Consider my vote for this as well. :) The reality is, with insert speed the > >way it is, inserting as little data as possible should be a goal, and while > >bzip2's compression method is without question slower than gzip, I'm sure > >we'll be blocked by insert velocity long before the compression rate > >becomes > >an issue. > > Please no bzip2. > The problem with bzip2 is that it is every bit as slow to compress as > it is to decompress. > > If better compression is required please look at getting someone to do > a java port of LZMA. LZMA is in generally somewhat faster than bzip2 > for compression (and gets better compression rations on most content, > to much better compression on some content) and is MUCH faster than > bzip2 for decompression. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060812/f3456f32/attachment.pgp>
