[Nyan]

You should at least be benchmarking against par2cmdline-turbo instead (stock par2cmdline isn't exactly performance-oriented). Also, you need to list the parameters used as they significantly impact performance of PAR2.

Your benchmark also doesn't list the redundancy %, as well as how resilient it is against corruption.

One thing I note is that both ISA-L and zfec use GF8, whilst PAR2 uses GF16. The latter is around twice as slow to compute, but allows for significantly more blocks/shards.

[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.