zstd VS zlib-ng

Of course, you may get different results with another dataset.

gzip (zlib -6) [ratio=32%] [compr=35Mo/s] [dec=407Mo/s]

zstd (zstd -2) [ratio=32%] [compr=356Mo/s] [dec=1067Mo/s]

NB1: The default for zstd is -3, but the table only had -2. The difference is probably small. The range is 1-22 for zstd and 1-9 for gzip.

NB2: The default program for gzip (at least with Debian) is the executable from zlib. With my workflows, libdeflate-gzip iscompatible and noticably faster.

NB3: This benchmark is 2 years old. The latest releases of zstd are much better, see https://github.com/facebook/zstd/releases

For a high compression, according to this benchmark xz can do slightly better, if you're willing to pay a 10× penalty on decompression.

xz -9 [ratio=23%] [compr=2.6Mo/s] [dec=88Mo/s]

zstd -9 [ratio=23%] [compr=2.6Mo/s] [dec=88Mo/s]

Compression, synchronization and backup systems often use rolling hash to implement "content-defined chunking", an effective form of deduplication.

In optimized implementations, Rabin-Karp is likely to be the bottleneck. See for instance https://github.com/facebook/zstd/pull/2483 which replaces a Rabin-Karp variant by a >2x faster Gear-Hashing.

Get the data https://publicdistst.blob.core.windows.net/data/root.tar.zst magnet:?xt=urn:btih:84931cd80409ba6331f2fcfbe64ba64d4381aec5&dn=root.tar.zst How to extract https://github.com/facebook/zstd Linux (debian): `sudo apt install zstd` ``` tar -I 'zstd -d -T0' -xvf root.tar.zst ```

I've done that experiment with zstd before.

https://github.com/facebook/zstd/blob/dev/programs/zstd.1.md...

Not sure about brotli though.

If you want this functionality in zstd itself, check this out: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/pull/2349

The story says : "ZSTD 1.5.5 is released with a corruption fix found at Google"

Please note that allowing for 2% bigger resulting file could mean huge speedup in these circumstances even with the same compression routines, seeing these benchmarks of zlib and zlib-ng for different compression levels:

https://github.com/zlib-ng/zlib-ng/discussions/871

IMO the fair comparison of the real speed improvement brought by a new program is only between the almost identical resulting compressed sizes.

It is much faster than miniz_oxide and all other safe-Rust implementations, and consistently beats even Zlib. The performance is roughly on par with zlib-ng - sometimes faster, sometimes slower. It is not (yet) as fast as the original libdeflate in C.

Zlib-ng doesn't contain the same code, but it appears that their equivalent inflate() when used with their inflateGetHeader() implementation was affected by a similar problem: https://github.com/zlib-ng/zlib-ng/pull/1328

Also similarly, most client code will be unaffected because `state->head` will be NULL, because they (most client code) won't have used inflateGetHeader() at all.

I wonder if zlib-ng would make a difference, since it has a lot of optimizations for modern hardware.

https://github.com/zlib-ng/zlib-ng/discussions/871

zlib-ng also has adler32 implementations optimized for various architectures: https://github.com/zlib-ng/zlib-ng

Might be interesting to benchmark their implementation too to see how it compares.

zlib-ng: https://github.com/zlib-ng/zlib-ng/blob/develop/functable.c

(2) There are many packages that rely upon zlib and minizip and switching those underlying dependencies is easier said than done. We can't drop zlib completely and switch: "The idea of zlib-ng is not to replace zlib, but to co-exist as a drop-in replacement with a lower threshold for code change." - https://github.com/zlib-ng/zlib-ng

There are already active zlib forks (e.g. https://github.com/zlib-ng/zlib-ng), the problem is with having people move to them. It takes a lot of effort to move mindshare from the original version to a fork, there's some historical examples of it happening, but not a ton.