Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 09, 2016, 01:21:05 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?  (Read 19787 times)

wr975

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2010, 09:04:02 AM »
I believe you are right about the dump that I receive in RAR format is not packed using the most extreme settings RAR has to offer.
But still, I expect 7-zip to be at least 30% to 50% more efficient than anything winRAR can bring to the table. Regarding my dumpfiles that is.

At the cost of time.

I tried packing 2 GB of Access databases. 7z (Ultra) was about 26% smaller, but needed 20 minutes, while RAR (best) needed 6 minutes.

26% more effective, but 3x slower.

I'm not sure if "smallest archive size" is the only way to find the "best archiving utility". I think RAR's compression time/size ratio is quite OK. I also like its ability to detected CRC errors in (split) archives, report missing archives, repair defective files using recovery records, keep broken files, extract from split archives even without the full set,... and so on.


Just guessing, but perhaps your 200 GB file is packed with "super fast" because it would need longer to compress / decompress a strong compressed file (7z "ultra" or RAR "best"), than downloading the extra 11 GB (because of weak compression).
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 09:06:05 AM by wr975 »

CWuestefeld

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,002
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #51 on: August 13, 2010, 09:24:00 AM »
I'm not sure if "smallest archive size" is the only way to find the "best archiving utility". I think RAR's compression time/size ratio is quite OK.

It certainly is ... for applications where its compression/speed tradeoff is appropriate. Every application has a unique requirement.

I recently had to change from ZIP to 7Z for an application here at work. The archive file size exceeded 2GB, and the limitations of some of the software involved (including our embedded ZIP archive code, if not the ZIP format itself) forced us to hold the file size below that limit. RAR was out of the question, since the compression code requires a commercial license. We had little choice but to pick 7Z in this case.

On the other hand, we've done a fair amount of experimentation on compression of data to be transmitted through web services. Again using the same embedded ZIP compressor, we found that maximal compression only achieved a marginal improvement over high compression (for the type of data we were compressing, at least), but required many times the computation resources. It seemed like the best tradeoff for the scalability of our web services was to go with just high compression, and let the CPUs and RAM have a lighter load.

Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,100
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #52 on: August 13, 2010, 10:06:52 PM »
I believe you are right about the dump that I receive in RAR format is not packed using the most extreme settings RAR has to offer.
But still, I expect 7-zip to be at least 30% to 50% more efficient than anything winRAR can bring to the table. Regarding my dumpfiles that is.

At the cost of time.

I tried packing 2 GB of Access databases. 7z (Ultra) was about 26% smaller, but needed 20 minutes, while RAR (best) needed 6 minutes.

26% more effective, but 3x slower.

I'm not sure if "smallest archive size" is the only way to find the "best archiving utility". I think RAR's compression time/size ratio is quite OK. I also like its ability to detected CRC errors in (split) archives, report missing archives, repair defective files using recovery records, keep broken files, extract from split archives even without the full set,... and so on.


Just guessing, but perhaps your 200 GB file is packed with "super fast" because it would need longer to compress / decompress a strong compressed file (7z "ultra" or RAR "best"), than downloading the extra 11 GB (because of weak compression).

Your point is very true...with a high capacity connection.

However, I have to pull those files through a 512KBit connection which is costing about 120 USD/month. You can get cheaper, higher rated connections over here, but those lines here are really 'overbooked' and unreliable.  In my situation I simply lose too much time downloading. Besides that, my download is immediately ready to be stored on the least amount of DVD's.

electronixtar

  • Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #53 on: August 14, 2010, 01:18:57 AM »
There is a Chinese WinRAR knockoff for 7z:

http://www.coolrar.com/

source code (will be BSD in 2.0):

http://www.coolrar.c...load/CoolRAR1.0.0.7z
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 01:20:39 AM by electronixtar »

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #54 on: August 15, 2010, 04:15:38 PM »
Shades: sending only a diff of the dumps isn't an option?
- carpe noctem

Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,100
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #55 on: August 15, 2010, 06:29:49 PM »
No, not really. (over-)Eager database admins change always so much that a complete dump is necessary. 

if it was always the same database then I agree with your point...but unfortunately that isn't the case.

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,723
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #56 on: August 16, 2010, 12:05:48 AM »
(creating different archives per file or folder, and deleting the source files after compression are invaluable features)

Thanks for reminding me of the only two features I miss from WinRAR.

However, a bit of investigation led me to an AHK script/utility called 7-Zip Each File. It's a lot easier than trying to figure out how to do it by command-line. The only thing it seems to be missing is the option to delete the source file after compressing.


tslim

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #57 on: August 17, 2010, 03:23:31 PM »
Your point is very true...with a high capacity connection.

However, I have to pull those files through a 512KBit connection which is costing about 120 USD/month. You can get cheaper, higher rated connections over here, but those lines here are really 'overbooked' and unreliable.  In my situation I simply lose too much time downloading. Besides that, my download is immediately ready to be stored on the least amount of DVD's.

I find your way of measuring efficiency odd...
1. It takes you longer to produce the smallest size zip but requires less download time.
or
2. It takes you longer to download a moderate size zip but saves you some compression time.

Either way, you are simply swithcing the "wait" between the 2 processes.

If the zip is prepared by someone else, then he/she always produces a bigger zip to save his/her time, that is a matter of his/her choice and should not be taken as a factor in determining WinRar's efficiency.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 03:27:50 PM by tslim »

Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,100
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #58 on: August 17, 2010, 07:11:02 PM »
Your point is very true...with a high capacity connection.

However, I have to pull those files through a 512KBit connection which is costing about 120 USD/month. You can get cheaper, higher rated connections over here, but those lines here are really 'overbooked' and unreliable.  In my situation I simply lose too much time downloading. Besides that, my download is immediately ready to be stored on the least amount of DVD's.

I find your way of measuring efficiency odd...
1. It takes you longer to produce the smallest size zip but requires less download time.
or
2. It takes you longer to download a moderate size zip but saves you some compression time.

Either way, you are simply swithcing the "wait" between the 2 processes.

If the zip is prepared by someone else, then he/she always produces a bigger zip to save his/her time, that is a matter of his/her choice and should not be taken as a factor in determining WinRar's efficiency.


Granted, you have a point there...if you are using a system (or work-flow) where the bottleneck is almost the same size than the rest of the system.

However you do not seem to grok that the bottleneck in my complete work-flow is the internet connection...let me clarify with an example. Imagine a bucket of water, an empty bucket similar to the first one and a straw to get the water from one bucket to the other.

I use a VPN connection to let a quad core PC create the archive in 2 to 2,5 hours the download will take an x amount of time. Downloading the moderately compressed archive easily takes x + 6 to 8 hours more (if I am lucky, internet here in Paraguay is really not as stable, as in the northern hemisphere of the globe...even with business subscriptions).

Over here I use an i7 PC that takes 30 to 40 minutes to unpack the highly compressed archive and I am already way into the importing process when the moderately compressed would be in. As I am paid by the hour, my benefactor does not complain at all.

Besides that, with all the computing power that is available in modern PC's, do you really think it should be wasted by playing the latest games or editing/encoding your home video alone?







 

Tuxman

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,773
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #59 on: August 19, 2010, 06:21:40 PM »
I switched from PowerArchiver to WinRAR when it became payware until I found 7-Zip some years ago.
Sticking with .7z (LZMA2 is fine) for most purposes, rather exotic file types are handled by IZArc (yes, I still do work with .ace archives every now and then).

Although I'm quite sure that PAQ8 is still the strongest compression algorithm, it lacks speed. Would probably prefer it to .7z else.

fenixproductions

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,184
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #60 on: August 20, 2010, 08:11:37 AM »
WinRAR for me because of:
 - the best speed/size ratio,
 - nice command line support,
 - file names encryption (SQX had that but died).

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,723
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #61 on: August 20, 2010, 04:16:12 PM »
WinRAR for me because of:
 - the best speed/size ratio,
 - nice command line support,
 - file names encryption (SQX had that but died).

I don't have (much) experience with either of these, but 7-Zip also has command-line support (not sure how good it is) and file name encryption.


fenixproductions

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,184
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #62 on: August 20, 2010, 07:30:00 PM »
I don't have (much) experience with either of these, but 7-Zip also has command-line support (not sure how good it is) and file name encryption.
Now I feel ashamed because for password protection I could swear the opposite. When was it added? Has "error recovery" feature been added too? Either way speed issue remains.

It seems I am too much behind :(

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,723
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #63 on: August 21, 2010, 06:48:45 PM »
I don't have (much) experience with either of these, but 7-Zip also has command-line support (not sure how good it is) and file name encryption.
Now I feel ashamed because for password protection I could swear the opposite. When was it added? Has "error recovery" feature been added too? Either way speed issue remains.

I don't know when those options were added and I don't know if it has any "error recovery" features. I know it can check to make sure archives are valid, but I suspect that's not what you mean.


tslim

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #64 on: August 26, 2010, 08:19:17 AM »
However you do not seem to grok that the bottleneck in my complete work-flow is the internet connection...
I understand internet connection speed is the bottleneck and I also understand in your case, the best archiver will be the one which compresses the most.

However, no archive utility relies on internet connection to do its job, so a measure which is based on internet connection speed can not be used to judge how good an archive program is.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 12:14:02 PM by tslim »

CWuestefeld

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,002
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #65 on: August 26, 2010, 08:26:55 AM »
a measure which is based on internet connection speed can not be used to judge how good an achieve[sic] program is.

This is false. You seem to believe that there is a single best program for everyone, that they can be judged in absolute terms.

Really, the only valid measure is how well a given program meets its user's needs. Since each of us are trying to accomplish different things in different ways, it's likely that there will be a range of programs that excel, with some of us choosing different ones as the optimum.

Shades has explained quite clearly (at the risk of belaboring a sub-thread that I think is already a dead horse) that total time to move a chunk of data is his greatest criteria, so obviously the best for him is the program that can compress the greatest. On the other hand, when I'm compressing I'm generally doing it as a backup; with this cumbersome task, I'm much happier when the time of the compression and decompression is optimal, even if it costs me a bit more space. So Shades and I have opposite "best archiver" conclusions, but neither of us is wrong.

And by the way, please take some time to spell-check your posts. Your repeated substitution of "achieve" instead of "archive" took me several reads to figure out.

iphigenie

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,169
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #66 on: August 28, 2010, 02:29:59 AM »
I have almost never given much thought to compression - use what comes with the OS (ususally providing a combo of bz2, gz and zip), or little old peazip. On the servers I still tend to stick with gz - files are bigger, but the time and CPU load compressing large log files with the other formats is too disruptive

Although watching people with different priorities in the time vs cpu use vs size debate trying to argue the best product out (nicely) is rather entertaining :)

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,092
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #67 on: September 08, 2010, 10:10:23 AM »
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 09:41:18 PM by Curt »

tslim

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #68 on: September 13, 2010, 12:11:35 PM »
a measure which is based on internet connection speed can not be used to judge how good an achieve[sic] program is.

This is false. You seem to believe that there is a single best program for everyone, that they can be judged in absolute terms.
No! My statement is not FALSE. It has nothing to do with "single best program for everyone"
I just want to point out that, if there is a formula which measure the power of archive program, then "internet connection speed" can never be a factor of that formula.

In a layman concept, you can of course relate anything as a mean to measure the usefulness of archive program, but any conclusion you made will become subjective and (no offense, please) is a crap. Just like I could say, because my keyboard is crack and therefore very difficult for me to type/input into MS Excel, I therefore find MS Excel is not good.
Would you agree with me that "keyboard" is a solid factor to measure how good MS Excel is?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 12:15:30 PM by tslim »

dhuser

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • King Dogbert
    • View Profile
    • StumbleUpon Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #69 on: September 13, 2010, 08:26:40 PM »
I use WinRAR for its speed and ease of use, but I also have the PowerArchiver Free version installed as well - They recently released a free version at http://www.powerarchiver.com/blog/2010/07/01/powerarchiver-free-happy-4th-of-july/ . On a less powerful system in my house, I have 7-Zip installed.
My StumbleUpon Profile
Imagine.Explore.Create!

Tuxman

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,773
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #70 on: September 13, 2010, 08:59:53 PM »
Damn, I missed the PA Free. Although I had tested the latest "Full" version a few weeks ago and wasn't too impressed ...

def

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2006
  • *
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #71 on: September 18, 2010, 01:06:25 PM »
I notice that nobody uses WinRK. What do you think? I heard the stability should have improved a lot compared to previous versions. Anyone tried the demo of the current version yet? On the other hand, I'm not sure WinRK is still actively developed - the newest version ist two years old now...

I currently use StuffIt on WinXP currently, but only because I found the StuffIt CD before I downloaded 7-Zip. I guess if I encounter a 7z archive I will replace StuffIt with 7-Zip - always liked the lean 7-Zip better than this bloated file manager, backup scheduler, e-mail, FTP... and *cough* compression package called StuffIt...


Giampy

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2009
  • *
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #73 on: October 06, 2010, 08:51:04 AM »
What do you think about ARJ?
"A refrigerator without beer is like a body without soul"

MrCrispy

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2006
  • *
  • Posts: 331
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #74 on: October 06, 2010, 04:09:53 PM »
Anyone have a Coolrar english version? Would like to try it out.