[gbletr42]

Got it, I'll add par2cmdline-turbo (I didn't know it existed) to the list along with those key details. Likewise, I'll also go and describe the benefits and downsides of each tool in more detail. I'll get around to it when I release the next version soon that fixes some of the problems described in this thread.

[Nyan]

Thanks for doing that.

> par2cmdline[-turbo] encode: par2 c -r25 test

That command is rather unfair to PAR2 - you should add `-b48 -n2 -u` to make the comparison fairer.

PAR2 ain't exactly fast, particularly compared to GF8 focused formats, but the numbers you initially gave seemed wildly off, so I suspected the comparison wasn't really fair.

Ideally you should also be including the version of each tool used.

[gbletr42]

I've updated the benchmarks to include those flags. I've also specified the versions of all software involved.

It seems par2 is significantly faster with those options set than without, as in by an order of magnitude, it seems par2 struggles greatly with the large number of blocks that it sets by default. Thank you for telling me.

[Nyan]

Nice work - thanks for your efforts!

Yeah, the compute complexity for Reed Solomon is generally O(size_of_input * number_of_recovery_blocks)

If you don't specify the number of blocks, par2cmdline defaults to 2000, so at 25%, it's generating 500 parity blocks, which is obviously much slower than what you're generating with the other tools.

Having said that, PAR2 is generally aimed at use cases with hundreds/thousands of parity blocks, so it's going to be at a disadvantage if you're generating less than 10 - which your benchmark shows.