Saving TBs of storage space without sacrificing transfer time

5 réponses [Dernière contribution]
nadebula.1984
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/01/2018

Either lz4 or zstd --fast serves my target. I may want to try whether such archives can be mounted and extracted remotely (via SSH, SFTP or at least FTP over TLS).

When lz4 was initially released several years before, I was interested in it. However, I wasted many years (vainly) searching for a .exe or .msi package named "WinLz4"...

andyprough
En ligne
A rejoint: 02/12/2015

Oh that makes sense. WinZip, WinRAR, why not winLz4? Yes that would be disappointing to wait and never have it.

nadebula.1984
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/01/2018

There is a 3rd-party modified version of 7-zip that supports several additional compression algorithms including lz4 and zstd, etc.. However, I no longer need 7-zip (for Losedows useds) since I switched to GNU/Linux.

Also, I couldn't understand why there were several compression software that only compresses single file. I never knew they could be (and were designed to be) used in combination with tar, until I switched to GNU/Linux.

andyprough
En ligne
A rejoint: 02/12/2015

> Also, I couldn't understand why there were several compression software that only compresses single file. I never knew they could be (and were designed to be) used in combination with tar, until I switched to GNU/Linux.

My first experience with Losedows was in the early 1990s, and at that time you couldn't do much of anything without going into the DOS command line system that Losedows sat on top of. Because of that, you learned quite a bit more about how the OS operated. When Losedows decided to hide their underlying structure and push users to only see the gui stuff most of the time, around about Losedows 95 or Losedows 98, I think it hurt the ability of the majority of users to understand what was happening underneath the gui.

nadebula.1984
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/01/2018

I was a DOS user, so switching to GNU/Linux was not so painful for me.

Magic Banana

I am a member!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 07/24/2010

Tar files (aka tarballs) are not compressed. In fact a tarball is a (very) little bit larger than the file(s) it contains. Indeed, a tarball is basically a concatenation of files, each of them preceded by its metadata (its name, its permissions, its owner, its last modification date, ..., and its size, what allows to know where the next file will start).

Compressing tarballs, rather than their individual files, usually provides better compression ratios. Indeed a repeating "pattern" (basically a sub-sequence of bytes) may be shared between the files. For instance if they are plain text files in a same language.