Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Better Zip Compression (Read 42749 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Better Zip Compression

Reply #75 –
They won't work. SOMEthing about those archives is bad/old. Won't work with 7z.
 

Better Zip Compression

Reply #76 –
Quote
i dunno what type of cabinet files you're talking about, but i can't remember ever seeing something smaller as a rar than as a cabinet.

try again with rar using the best compression method, solid archive, and 4096KB dictionary size...

Better Zip Compression

Reply #77 –
interesting, but slow. i ran this thingy over some docs = txt, html, pdf files:

88.437.787 docs.zip (internal wincmd zip)
82.909.269 docs.7z
--------------------
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

Better Zip Compression

Reply #78 –
Quote
Quote
i dunno what type of cabinet files you're talking about, but i can't remember ever seeing something smaller as a rar than as a cabinet.

try again with rar using the best compression method, solid archive, and 4096KB dictionary size...

i did use those options, actually, except for the dictionary size. i'm no expert, so i wasn't aware of some of the more subtle options. but it's already off my hdd, since i'm a college student == poor so i wasn't planning on using it anyway. how important is changing the dictionary size from the default value? just curious...

Better Zip Compression

Reply #79 –
Quote
how important is changing the dictionary size from the default value? just curious...

Dictionary size was 4096 by default last time I tried WinRAR 3.0.

Better Zip Compression

Reply #80 –
The 7z format in itself is very impressive, however that lack of what I would call a very good sleak frontend for the program like WinRAR is missing - that alone is the reason I never did anything much with 7z.

If a very usable frontend was made packed with all the goodies, and some of the problems (I won't elaborate) I've encountered in Win98 were repaired I'd give the format another try-out.

Over that past two years whatever archiver I've installed I'd always end up almost immediately uninstalling it in favor of WinRAR.

Better Zip Compression

Reply #81 –
Quote
how important is changing the dictionary size from the default value? just curious...

dictionary size makes a great deal of difference, the more data you have to compress, the more important a larger dictionary size is.  It can make a very big difference in the compressed size. Perhaps this newer program can beat winrar in some or a lot of cases, but I've been using winrar for years now and it's enough of a standard for me to keep from switching.

Better Zip Compression

Reply #82 –
Quote
Don't be ridiculous. 7zip does not compress better than RAR v3.

Currently 7Zip is the most powerful common archiver on the web. Here are the results for compressing two dirs in GTA3 pc game.

Uncompressed files: 298,208,343 bytes
WinZip (Best compression) 2.5 mins 106.3 Mb
7Zip ZIP Mode (-mx) 6 mins 99.0 Mb
WinAce 2.2 (4Mb,MAX,solid,...) 6 mins 84.2 Mb
WinRar 3.0 (4Mb,MAX,solid,...) 6 mins 78.1 Mb
7Zip Mode 1 - 5 mins 74.0 Mb
7Zip Mode 2 - 9 mins 60.9 Mb
7Zip Mode 3 - 13 mins 55.4 Mb
7Zip Mode 4 - 17 mins 50.3 Mb
7Zip Mode 5 - 22 mins 48.7 Mb

Feel the difference, huh!

Command lines for 7zip modes:

7z.exe a -t7z -r -y backup.7z *.* -m0=BCJ2 -m1=LZMA -m2=LZMA -m3=LZMA -mb0:1 -mb0s1:2 -mb0s2:3 -m1a=0 -m2a=0 -m3a=0 -m1d=4M -m2d=4M -m3d=4M -m1fb=32 -m2fb=32 -m3fb=32

7z.exe a -t7z -r -y backup.7z *.* -m0=BCJ2 -m1=LZMA -m2=LZMA -m3=LZMA -mb0:1 -mb0s1:2 -mb0s2:3 -m1a=1 -m2a=1 -m3a=1 -m1d=8M -m2d=8M -m3d=8M -m1fb=32 -m2fb=32 -m3fb=32

7z.exe a -t7z -r -y backup.7z *.* -m0=BCJ2 -m1=LZMA -m2=LZMA -m3=LZMA -mb0:1 -mb0s1:2 -mb0s2:3 -m1a=2 -m2a=2 -m3a=2 -m1d=16M -m2d=16M -m3d=16M -m1fb=64 -m2fb=64 -m3fb=64

7z.exe a -t7z -r -y backup.7z *.* -m0=BCJ2 -m1=LZMA -m2=LZMA -m3=LZMA -mb0:1 -mb0s1:2 -mb0s2:3 -m1a=2 -m2a=2 -m3a=2 -m1d=32M -m2d=32M -m3d=32M -m1fb=128 -m2fb=128 -m3fb=128

7z.exe a -t7z -r -y backup.7z *.* -m0=BCJ2 -m1=LZMA -m2=LZMA -m3=LZMA -mb0:1 -mb0s1:2 -mb0s2:3 -m1a=2 -m2a=2 -m3a=2 -m1d=45M -m2d=45M -m3d=45M -m1fb=192 -m2fb=192 -m3fb=192

U need lots of mem for last 2 modes, but difference comparing to WinRAR3 is incredible.

7zip always gets better compression on every type of files, comparing to common other archivers.

----------------

Just made another test.

Commodore Amiga #-B TOSEC full set, 2563 files.

Unpacked: 2,308,855,869 bytes
ZIP MAX: 1,245,925,724 bytes
WinRAR3 Solid MAX: 651,161,766 bytes
7ZIP MAX: 507,384,429 bytes (7z.exe a -t7z -r -y backup.7z *.* -m0=BCJ2 -m1=LZMA -m2=LZMA -m3=LZMA -mb0:1 -mb0s1:2 -mb0s2:3 -m1a=2 -m2a=2 -m3a=2 -m1d=45M -m2d=45M -m3d=45M -m1fb=192 -m2fb=192 -m3fb=192)


Maybe my message is late, but some numbers may be useful.

Better Zip Compression

Reply #83 –
Nero must have self-compressed binary files, I'd expect 7z to have much more compression than ZIP and RAR.

A really fair test is to exclude those binaries since they do not recompress much. A program called UPX is used quite a bit, such CDex is a one for instance.
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

Better Zip Compression

Reply #84 –
i still think that 7z are lacking alot of features

I'm using winrar do distrubte self-installing archieves.

e.g sfx archive that decomrpes to %temp% folder , run an exe file, clears up the temp folder after running the .exe.

7z does not have this option.

also you need to many mouse clicks to extract an .7z archieve compaed to extracting a .rar archieve ( a very small issues)
Sven Bent - Denmark

Better Zip Compression

Reply #85 –
For ultimate compression of ZIP archives, use ZipMax:
www.clrmame.com
It parses each file within a ZIP archive and tries several different compression methods before choosing the best one for each file, and then multiplexes the ZIP accordingly.
Usually you can shave off at least a few % which can make quite a difference it you're using big files.

Just in case anyone was interested...

Better Zip Compression

Reply #86 –
Quote
U need lots of mem for last 2 modes, but difference comparing to WinRAR3 is incredible.


Even "mode 3" (-m3d=16M -m1fb=64 etc...) failed on my system, giving System Error: Out of memory... I only have 192 MB RAM and my swap on a fixed-size partition. Is the same amount of RAM needed for decompression?

Tested on 242 MB uncompressed data:

7z -tzip -mx : 123 MB
Winrar 3 (4 MB dict, max etc) : 67.0 MB
7z "mode 2" : 61.1 MB

I would switch to 7z if it had the same amount of features like winrar, for example:
  • Multivolume support
  • Using a "rarfiles.lst" or grouping files togheter by their contents instead of sorting by extension
  • recovery record/volumes
  • better gui similar to win- zip/rar/ace

Better Zip Compression

Reply #87 –
Quote
i still think that 7z are lacking alot of features
also you need to many mouse clicks to extract an .7z archieve compaed to extracting a .rar archieve ( a very small issues)


Rightclick->Extract->OK is to many clicks? How many clicks do you need in Winrar? Unless it is zero it is not that big a difference if at all.

As for a self installer. All that is waiting is for someone to write it. And since the source is open they could easily do so. Not so for RAR.

Better Zip Compression

Reply #88 –
Quote
Quote
U need lots of mem for last 2 modes, but difference comparing to WinRAR3 is incredible.


Even "mode 3" (-m3d=16M -m1fb=64 etc...) failed on my system, giving System Error: Out of memory... I only have 192 MB RAM and my swap on a fixed-size partition. Is the same amount of RAM needed for decompression?

Tested on 242 MB uncompressed data:

7z -tzip -mx : 123 MB
Winrar 3 (4 MB dict, max etc) : 67.0 MB
7z "mode 2" : 61.1 MB


I was getting the same errors. But I had my swap size fixed. I set it back to system managed(yech) and it worked ok. Swap balooned up to a GB but it worked. And for those of you using the GUI version wanting to try the switches simply remove all instances of the "-m" switch but leave what follows. Simple I know. But still easy for people to miss.

For eg. "0=BCJ2 1=LZMA 2=LZMA 3=LZMA b0:1 b0s1:2 b0s2:3 1a=2 2a=2 3a=2 1d=45M 2d=45M 3d=45M 1fb=192 2fb=192 3fb=192"


Quote
I would switch to 7z if it had the same amount of features like winrar, for example:
  • Multivolume support

  • Using a "rarfiles.lst" or grouping files togheter by their contents instead of sorting by extension

  • recovery record/volumes

  • better gui similar to win- zip/rar/ace


Multivolume is tenatively schedualed for December as are recovery records. I miss the old GUI. I hope the current version is not around much longer. Though I don't use the GUI that much. As far as a "rarfiles.lst" I have never used one and am not 100% on what it is. Some sort of rules for automated file compression of set directories? If I need to compress stuff by common content I simply select and compress that stuff myself.

Better Zip Compression

Reply #89 –
Quote
As far as a "rarfiles.lst" I have never used one and am not 100% on what it is.


It is used to increase compression.

For example; adding a bunch of .c files, then .mp3 (or other type that is hard to compress) and last a bunch of .txt-files, it's most likely that grouping the .c and .txt togheter increases compression.

From the Winrar help:

Quote
Files in a solid archive are usually sorted by extension. It is possible to set an alternative file order using a special file, rarfiles.lst (this should be in the same folder as Winrar.exe). It is already provided in the WinRAR distributive, but may be customized for user files set. This is a plain text file, which defines the order of files when a solid archive is created. The file rarfiles.lst may contain file names, wildcards and a special entry - $default. The default entry defines the place in the order list for files not matched with other entries in rarfiles.lst.

Tips to provide improved compression and speed of operation:
- Similar files should be grouped together in the archive if possible;
- Frequently accessed files should be placed at the beginning.


Quote
Multivolume is tenatively schedualed for December as are recovery records.


Looks promising

Edit2: (removed the last edit...)

Did some digging through the helpfile and the forums at http://sourceforge.net/projects/sevenzip/

For maximum zip-compression (slightly better than -mx):
Code: [Select]
7z a -tzip -mfb=255 -mpass=4 -r -y archive.zip *


The author himself, Igor Pavlov stated:
Quote
When BCJ2 is used dictionary sizes for methods 2 and 3 can be set to 1/8 of dictionary size of method 1.

So I used a modified "mode 4":

7z.exe a -t7z -r -y backup.7z *.* -m0=BCJ2 -m1=LZMA -m2=LZMA -m3=LZMA -mb0:1 -mb0s1:2 -mb0s2:3 -m1a=2 -m2a=2 -m3a=2 -m1d=32M -m2d=4M -m3d=4M -m1fb=128 -m2fb=128 -m3fb=128

This worked on my system, used about ~550 MB RAM. Can someone (with large ram) please test how well this line compresses vs Zombiek's "mode 4" ? Preferably on a large amount of .exe and .dll-files...

Better Zip Compression

Reply #90 –
Quote
For ultimate compression of ZIP archives, use ZipMax:
www.clrmame.com
It parses each file within a ZIP archive and tries several different compression methods ...

Cool program. At least for me (I have lot of time to repack my zips ) Does anyone know some commandline free zip compessors (I already have 7zip (7zan.exe) and Info-zip 2.3)
--
pozdr.
yq

Better Zip Compression

Reply #91 –
Just a suggestion: check out CTX "... that on most datatypes achieves compression very close to WinRAR 3.00 and sometimes even better. CTX is strongly fixed in "top 10" archivers. In future, results shown by version 1.00 final will be even better."

...and is GPL !

Better Zip Compression

Reply #92 –
Quote
Quote
i still think that 7z are lacking alot of features
also you need to many mouse clicks to extract an .7z archieve compaed to extracting a .rar archieve ( a very small issues)


Rightclick->Extract->OK is to many clicks? How many clicks do you need in Winrar? Unless it is zero it is not that big a difference if at all.

As for a self installer. All that is waiting is for someone to write it. And since the source is open they could easily do so. Not so for RAR.

with winrar you just need one (right)click and move the mouse af little

but as i said: its a small issue

and about the self installer ? i dont care if someoen could make it himself. I can't, so i cannot use 7z for 90% or my archieving.

i would skip to 7z as soon as this option was there, but it isn't
Sven Bent - Denmark

Better Zip Compression

Reply #93 –
Quote
and about the self installer ? i dont care if someoen could make it himself. I can't, so i cannot use 7z for 90% or my archieving.

i would skip to 7z as soon as this option was there, but it isn't

Actually, it is.

Go to the help file (the .chm, not the .txt) and go to Command Line Version -> Switches -> -sfx

There's a sub-section dealing with creating a simple installer.  If all you're looking to do is automagically run some setup.exe, then this should work just fine.

I just tested it out and it's really easy.  There's even a sample file in the help that you can copy and paste then edit to your liking.

Better Zip Compression

Reply #94 –
Quote
Quote
and about the self installer ? i dont care if someoen could make it himself. I can't, so i cannot use 7z for 90% or my archieving.

i would skip to 7z as soon as this option was there, but it isn't

Actually, it is.

Go to the help file (the .chm, not the .txt) and go to Command Line Version -> Switches -> -sfx

There's a sub-section dealing with creating a simple installer.  If all you're looking to do is automagically run some setup.exe, then this should work just fine.

I just tested it out and it's really easy.  There's even a sample file in the help that you can copy and paste then edit to your liking.

thans alot
running an .exe is all that i need.

ill try this and if it works then winrar is going to the bin
Sven Bent - Denmark

Better Zip Compression

Reply #95 –
I find this format very interesting - very good compression and GNU LGPL.

For people searching a good GUI try "Total Commander" (formerly known as "Windows Commander") with the MultiArc plugin (multiple packer extension). There is a preformed configuration for 7z which works well. You can get it from Total Commander - Plugins

Better Zip Compression

Reply #96 –
Just wondering...

Usually I just right click on the files, choose Add to 7z -> Maximum, Create Solid Archive.

Would it give better compression if I use extra parameters?

Better Zip Compression

Reply #97 –
Did some more tests:

A collection of fasttracker .xm modules (461 MB uncompressed):

zip: 315.5 MB
rar3: 234.5 MB
7z: 177.3 MB

However, 7z isn't always best:

A collection of fasttracker .xi instruments (305 MB uncompressed, ~3500 files)

7z: 186 MB
rar3: 179 MB

rar3 = 4 MB dict, solid, max, etc...
7z: 7zn.exe a -t7z -r -y -m0=BCJ2 -m1=LZMA -m2=LZMA -m3=LZMA -mb0:1 -mb0s1:2 -mb0s2:3 -m1a=2 -m2a=2 -m3a=2 -m1d=16M -m2d=4M -m3d=4M -m1fb=128 -m2fb=128 -m3fb=128 archive.7z

Better Zip Compression

Reply #98 –
Quote
...However, 7z isn't always best:

A collection of fasttracker .xi instruments (305 MB uncompressed, ~3500 files)

7z: 186 MB
rar3: 179 MB

Close enough for me, thanks...

Better Zip Compression

Reply #99 –
I'm assuming nobody here frequently downloads ripped games from p2p/irc..

UHARC is an archiver used by a lot of the groups who produce these games, using some mad techniques to get 1gig down to 100mb.

I can't find any actual links to a UHA page with the latest downloads, never got around to looking into it.  Google will get you a french test between the latest archivers, (i put that link in so you can translate it).  UHA came out very similar to 7Z
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >