I ran the programs on the following file sets. I ran 7-Zip and WinRAR with those settings, one at a time, on a reasonably fast machine (Intel Core i7 4790 with 16GB RAM). The computer was not particularly busy with anything else, aside from the Firefox and Chrome browsers, in which I was reading from a few tabs I had already opened. The solid archive would “significantly increase compression when adding a large number of small, similar files.” But on the downside, a solid archive would be not only slower, when I went looking to retrieve a single file, but also riskier, because the presence of one damaged file in the archive renders all following files inaccessible. I chose a non-solid setting because WinRAR’s help file explained that solid archives had a significant risk for my purposes. (7-Zip Help, available via F1, provided more information on word size and other aspects of the 7-Zip interface.) Newer versions of WinRAR would confusingly offer RAR (rather than RAR5) as the latest version, with RAR4 as the legacy alternative.)įor 7-Zip, I started with 7z format, Ultra compression, LZMA2 (the default) (chosen because of 7-Zip’s limitation on options if I chose LZMA), 1024MB dictionary, word size = 256 bytes, non-solid, 6/8 CPU threads (so that it would not completely dominate the system), delete after compression. (Later, I would find that a 32MB setting seemed to be considered optimal for the dictionary. For WinRAR, I chose RAR5, Best compression method, 1024MB dictionary, no options other than delete after compression. I began by choosing what I thought would be optimal for each. (Of course, that would not work if the user had configured WinRAR not to be available via the context menu.)īoth 7-Zip and WinRAR offered multiple configuration options. In a recent version of WinRAR, I found relevant settings by going into Windows Explorer > select a file > right-click > WinRAR > Add to Archive. This discussion includes references to WinRAR’s settings. (Note also a later post discussing security in 7-Zip, another post offering some WinRAR benchmarks, and a different post reviewing Windows native compression.) In that search, I decided to compare WinRAR 圆4 5.40 against 7-Zip 圆4 16.02.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |