Pros of lz4

• Extremely fast compression and decompression speeds
• Simple API and easy integration into various projects
• Wide platform support and language bindings

Cons of lz4

• Lower compression ratio compared to more advanced algorithms
• Limited focus on specific compression tasks

Code comparison

lz4:

char* compressed = LZ4_compress_default(src, dst, srcSize, dstCapacity);
int decompressedSize = LZ4_decompress_safe(compressed, decompressed, compressedSize, maxDecompressedSize);

isa-l:

struct isal_zstream stream;
isal_deflate_init(&stream);
isal_deflate(&stream);
isal_inflate_init(&stream);
isal_inflate(&stream);

Key differences

• lz4 focuses primarily on fast compression/decompression
• isa-l provides a broader set of optimized storage and networking algorithms
• isa-l is specifically optimized for Intel architectures
• lz4 offers a simpler API for basic compression tasks
• isa-l includes additional features like erasure coding and cryptographic operations

Use cases

• lz4: Real-time compression, gaming, data transfer optimization
• isa-l: Storage systems, networking applications, data centers with Intel hardware

Community and support

• lz4: Active community, frequent updates, widely adopted
• isa-l: Backed by Intel, regular updates, focused on enterprise use cases

Pros of zstd

• Higher compression ratios and faster decompression speeds
• More versatile, supporting a wide range of compression levels
• Active development with frequent updates and improvements

Cons of zstd

• Slower compression speed for higher compression levels
• Larger memory footprint during compression

Code Comparison

zstd:

size_t ZSTD_compress(void* dst, size_t dstCapacity,
                     const void* src, size_t srcSize,
                     int compressionLevel);

ISA-L:

int isal_deflate(struct isal_zstream *stream);

Key Differences

• zstd offers a simpler API for basic compression tasks
• ISA-L focuses on hardware-accelerated implementations for Intel architectures
• zstd provides a single function for compression, while ISA-L uses a streaming interface

Use Cases

• zstd: General-purpose compression, especially when high compression ratios are needed
• ISA-L: Performance-critical applications on Intel hardware, particularly for storage and networking

Community and Support

• zstd has a larger community and more widespread adoption
• ISA-L is maintained by Intel and has specialized support for their hardware

Pros of Snappy

• Simpler API and easier integration for general-purpose compression
• Better cross-platform compatibility, not limited to Intel architectures
• More widespread adoption and community support

Cons of Snappy

• Generally slower compression and decompression speeds compared to ISA-L
• Less optimized for specific use cases like storage and networking
• Limited compression ratio compared to ISA-L's more advanced algorithms

Code Comparison

ISA-L (focusing on erasure coding):

erasure_code_base(unsigned char *data, unsigned char **coding,
                  unsigned int len, unsigned int k, unsigned int rows)

Snappy:

size_t Compress(const char* input, size_t input_length,
                std::string* compressed);

ISA-L provides low-level functions for various operations, including erasure coding, while Snappy offers a simpler API focused on general-purpose compression. ISA-L's code is more complex and requires deeper understanding of the underlying algorithms, whereas Snappy's API is more straightforward and easier to use for basic compression tasks.

Both libraries serve different purposes: ISA-L is a comprehensive library for storage and networking optimizations, while Snappy focuses on fast compression with a good balance between speed and compression ratio for general use cases.

Pros of pigz

• Specialized for parallel gzip compression, offering high-speed performance
• Portable and works on various platforms without specific hardware requirements
• Simple to use with a command-line interface similar to gzip

Cons of pigz

• Limited to gzip compression, unlike ISA-L's broader compression support
• May not fully utilize hardware-specific optimizations available in ISA-L
• Potentially lower compression ratios compared to ISA-L's advanced algorithms

Code Comparison

ISA-L (focusing on compression):

void isal_deflate(struct isal_zstream *stream)
{
    struct isal_zstate *state = &stream->internal_state;
    struct level_buf *level_buf = stream->level_buf;
    ...
}

pigz (main compression function):

local void parallel_compress(void)
{
    unsigned char *raw, *next, *dict;
    ...
    do {
        ...
    } while (more);
}

Both libraries implement compression algorithms, but ISA-L provides a more generalized approach with support for various compression methods, while pigz focuses specifically on parallel gzip compression. ISA-L's code structure suggests a more modular design, potentially allowing for easier integration into other projects. pigz's code is more straightforward, reflecting its specialized purpose.