Keep all software up to date - PatchMyPC. Never use the same password on more than one site. Recommend using a Password Manager for all websites, etc. Here are some suggestions for keeping your computer and data safer Not significantly so, but enough to be noted.Endpoint Detection & Response for Servers So 7z gave a substantial improvement in compression ratio in the two cases I tested above and beyond zip, and even improved on rar, but 7z was certainly slower. My tests a few months ago gave these results:Ĭompressing a single, 10MB access database file: Database.mdb 17,240,064 (original)ĭatabase.zip 1,634,794 (Regular zip, 11:1)ĭatabase.rar 262,212 (RAR compression, 66:1)ĭatabase.7z 195,678 (7-zip compression, 88:1)Ĭompressing a folder containing over nine thousand files of varying types (903,488KB) and got the following (this is a combination of source code and all the tools surrounding it for software being developed): Type Time Size (KB) Compressionįor time purposes, this was on a Core2 Duo, 2GHz, 1GB RAM, and a cheap hard drive. It depends on what exactly you're compressing, but in general 7z makes better use of multiple processors, and the 7z compression format itself yields higher compression than zip, and sometimes higher than rar (although rar and 7z are nearly equivalent, but rar isn't free.) Requires extensive amount of system resources, both CPU time and RAM.Īlso software to handle LZMA compressed files is not installed by Major disadvantage is that achieving the highest compression ratios Lzma is fast decompression which is many times quicker than bzip2. With files having other than plain text content. The lzma man page is worth reading: lzma provides notably better compression ratio than bzip2 especially It performs especially well with binary data, but I think I read some benchmarks of plain text where bzip2 outperformed it. *Compressing full installation of 1.1.4 for Linux (203 MB) In the following benchmarks the fastest setting for lzma gave compression times considerably faster than the fastest bzip2 option, while still giving compression better than the slowest bzip2 option: Lzma seems to perform very well in both compression ratio and speed. Why is bzip2 able to work so much faster than 7zip? Bzip2 uses more than 2 CPU cores to parallelize its work. See this article.įile Compression in the Multi-Core Era (Jeff Atwood a.k.a. This way you won't have the disadvantages of TAR, but you'll can still take advantage of bzip2 multi-core support. RAR is real loser there, neither great compression, nor really portable, nor fast.ĮDIT: seems that the best option would be 7-ZIP, but with bzip2 compression method. On the other hand 7-ZIP is also portable, the library is LGPL, and has compression rates much better then other two, comes as a cost of being more CPU consuming. Of these three, ZIP is the most proliferated, most anything supports it, many applications have built-in support. Ok, TAR's out, so that leaves you with ZIP, RAR and 7-ZIP. In the case of zip, rar or 7-zip, it'll go to the index table, skip to relevant position of the archive and only process relevant files. To get the last file from tar.gz or tar.bz2 archive, you have to decompress and process all of it. If you're expecting that you ever need to restore only limited number of selected files, forget about TAR. It's only good if you're planning to restore the whole thing. The problem with TAR is that it has no index table. For archiving they are usually used with TAR. Compress, Gzip, Bzip, Bzip2 are not for archiving multiple files.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |