2201
Living Room / Re: Simple way to connect two computers (both XP) ?
« Last post by Shades on August 28, 2010, 08:34 PM »By now you already had moved all your data with a stick and ´sneakernet´... 


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.-Shades (August 13, 2010, 10:06 PM)
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.-tslim (August 17, 2010, 03:23 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.-Shades (August 12, 2010, 05:52 PM)
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).-wr975 (August 13, 2010, 09:04 AM)
7-zip here. I regularly have to download database dump files. The biggest one is a 200GByte database and it is always made available to me as a rar-archive...of 16+ GByte.-Shades (August 11, 2010, 08:23 PM)
Now that's a MAN'S file there, baby!-zridling (August 11, 2010, 08:46 PM)
Yeah. Muy macho! I like it!!!
I have a client that regularly transfers huge files, although none are anywhere near as big as 200Gb.
But in their case, they found it quicker and less expensive to just dump to encrypted external hard drives and have them delivered on a rotating schedule by secure courier.-40hz (August 12, 2010, 10:48 AM)
Sure, there's going to be size differences between RAR and 7z, both are improved every now and then... but 16 vs 7 gigs sounds like too muchFortunately it isn't.
now I'm confused
I installed Speedfan on her computer . It reads 26 C for Core 0
29 C for Core 1
What are the safe parameters ? I tried googling " Safe Temps ' and found a range of 20 to 65 C. Seems pretty big spread to me.-ljbirns (July 29, 2010, 05:47 PM)
or cut to the chase.-Shades (July 26, 2010, 08:50 PM)
Chase? I usually cut to the cheese~!-Renegade (July 26, 2010, 09:13 PM)