Comment 16 for bug 1707918

Agreed, uncompressed tar doesn't stand a chance against anything you tested.

try

(donor) tar | zstd -T4 | socat socat | zstd -d -T4 ] tar (joiner)

.. with zstd >= 1.2.0 :)

Speedup and size reduction impressive, and our bottleneck is network IO, not disk.

xbstream already does some compression (albeit less efficient than zstd), adding another compression layer would provide some (if not identical) size gain as with tar streaming, but cost additional CPU cycles we avoid by not using xbstream, thus avoiding its compression.