Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The author of lzip goes into some degree of excitement on the reliability and recoverability of the lzip format compared to xz.

https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html

I personally back up about a terabyte each week, and I use 7-zip because it has built-in encryption, which is required because of the HR data in the backup. Thank heavens for xargs -P.

I could use "openssl enc" combined with any pure compression utility, but I don't want to make decompression impossible if I get hit by a bus.



> https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html

I have replaced all my previous uses of xz with lzip ever since I read that page (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32210438), but for some reason lzip never seem to rise to the same level of fame as xz. bzip3 also wasn't benchmarked against lzip.


I think you should just skip both xz and lzip, because that essay is in my opinion technically correct but also only deals with a very much minor concern [1]. If you want the recovery out of archives, you should use dedicated formats like PArchive and not ordinary archives with half-baked recovery attempts.

[1] Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39873122


For my personal backup use, I actually use RAR with recovery records, optionally with encryption if it's sensitive. I was only using xz in places where I couldn't use RAR (e.g. for work), and those places tend to also have lzip available.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: