[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#23113: parallel gzip processes trash hard disks, need larger buffers
From: |
Mark Adler |
Subject: |
bug#23113: parallel gzip processes trash hard disks, need larger buffers |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:18:08 -0700 |
Bastien,
On Apr 12, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Chevreux, Bastien <address@hidden> wrote:
> Questions: how stable / error proof is pigz compared to gzip? I always shied
> away from it as gzip is so much tried and tested that errors are unlikely ...
> and the zlib.net homepage does not make an "official" statement like "you
> should all now move to pigz, it's good and tested enough."
Certainly with -p 1, it is nothing more than a wrapper around zlib, which
itself is extensively tested. With -p > 1 it uses threads, which has been
tested on many systems successfully. Though I'd wonder about how portable it
really is. Unfortunately I have no way to know how widely deployed and used
pigz is. (Nor do I know how widely deployed and used gzip is, but pretty
widely.)
> Additional question: is there a pigzlib planned? :-)
I have been toying with ideas about how to provide parallel support in zlib. At
this point, I'm not sure what the interface should be.
Mark