PowerArchiver Home


Go Back   PowerArchiver Forums > PowerArchiver 2012 > Wishlist

View Poll Results: Do You need better 7z compression ratio in PowerArchiver 2007 ?
Yes of course ;] 10 90.91%
No, I dont need it 1 9.09%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-03-2007, 09:56 AM
Virtual_ManPL
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow 7zip need better ratio in PA

I tried with many options in 7-Zip to improve my compression ratio and I think that it will be good if PA Developers add this options to PA.
And noone archiver test crush new PA compression ratio in any tests.

I think that this formula should be use in Ultra mode
or You need add this formula in Extreme Mode ;]


And this formula for Parameters bring the best compression ratioand about increase PA ratio about 1-4%, and for me is big diffrence

Code:
x=9 s=on f=on hc=on hcf=on mt=on a=1 mf=bt4 fb=273 mc=1000000000 lc=0 lp=0 pb=0


and some explanation:


x=9
(level of compression)
options: x=[0 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 9] ,
higher number=better ratio


s=on
(solid mode)
options: s=[off | on]
on gives better ratio


f=on
(filters for executable files: dll, exe, ocx, sfx, sys)
options: f=[off | on]
on gives better ratio


hc=on
(archive header compressing)
options: hc=[off | on]
on gives better ratio


hcf=on
(full archive header compressing)
options: hcf=[off | on]
on gives better ratio


mt=on
(multithread mode)
options: mt=[off | on | {N}]
on gives faster processing time


a=1
(compressing mode)
options: a=[0|1]
higher number=better ratio


mf=bt4
(Match Finder for LZMA)
options: mf={MF_ID}
bt2 = d*9.5 + 4 MB = Binary Tree with 2 bytes hashing.
bt3 = d*11.5 + 4 MB
= Binary Tree with 3 bytes hashing.
bt4
= d*11.5 + 4 MB = Binary Tree with 4 bytes hashing.
hc4
= d*7.5 + 4 MB = Hash Chain with 4 bytes hashing.

the bt=4 provide the better compression ratio


fb=273
(fast bytes for LZMA)
options: fb={N} where N=<5,273>
higher number=better ratio


mc=1000000000
(cycles (passes) for match finder)
options: mc={N} where N=<0,1000000000>
higher number=better ratio


lc=0
(literal context bits (high bits of previous literal))
options: lc={N} where N=<0,8>
lower number
=better ratio


lp=0

(literal pos bits (low bits of current position for literals))
options: lp={N} where N=<0,4>
lower number=better ratio


pb=0
(pos bits (low bits of current position))
options: pb={N} where N=<0,4>
lower number=better ratio

Last edited by Virtual_ManPL; 02-07-2007 at 07:17 AM. Reason: some changes in formula
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-06-2007, 08:13 AM
Virtual_ManPL
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Angry

noone intrested add Extreme mode to 7zip compression to improve ratio
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-06-2007, 01:18 PM
Sir Richard's Avatar
Sir Richard Sir Richard is offline
Alpha Tester III
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,367
Thanks: 105
Thanked 163 Times in 127 Posts
Thumbs up

I must admit I use 7zip for 90% of all my compression at work due to using Spreadsheets, Databases and word documents.

If there is an improvement to the compression ratio then its worth looking into.

However, it's down to the PA Crew and the time it would take to develop and maintain for on going versions of 7Zip and PA.
__________________
Regards,


Sir Richard
Cheshire (UK)
------------------------
MS Windows 8 Pro+MediaPack 64-bit
Intel Core i5 2520M @ 2.50GHz, 6.00GB RAM,
NVIDIA Geforce GT 520MX

And always the latest Powerarchiver Toolbox
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-06-2007, 04:06 PM
spwolf's Avatar
spwolf spwolf is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,823
Thanks: 682
Thanked 207 Times in 192 Posts
More important - what is speed difference? 50% slower? :-)
__________________
ConeXware, Inc.
latest PA release info on Facebook, Twitter | Follow us and win free PowerArchiver.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-07-2007, 07:49 AM
Virtual_ManPL
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by spwolf View Post
More important - what is speed difference? 50% slower? :-)
Nope , but too my surprise it was faster than normal settings in 7-Zip



And some test on about 350 files (doc, wav, mpeg etc.) in 1 folder:

uncompressed folder
335 MB (352.235.162 bytes)

compressed in PA2007b9 (soild, Ultra mode)
224 MB (235.877.605 bytes)
10min 58 sek PA OWNS!!!

compressed in 7-Zip 4.44beta (soild, Ultra mode, Dictionary 48MB and other settings on default)
224 MB (235.136.186 bytes)
14min 35sek

compressed in 7-Zip 4.44beta (soild, Ultra mode, Dictionary 48MB and parameters like x=9 s=on f=on hc=on hcf=on mt=on a=1 mf=bt4 fb=273 mc=1000000000 lc=0 lp=0 pb=0
202 MB (211.952.354 bytes)
14min 17sek

this test was performed on PIII 900Mhz, 768MB RAM



and I think that settings for 7zip in PA2007 + Yours super mega tweaks improve compression speed = Super PA 2007 with the best compression ratio on the world

You may test normal PA2007 settings (Ultra, Solild) and my setting on PA2007
and You see what settings are better, because I dont have access to developer console
and I dont know what settings are better, because this test was performed only in 7-Zip
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-07-2007, 08:02 AM
spwolf's Avatar
spwolf spwolf is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,823
Thanks: 682
Thanked 207 Times in 192 Posts
Here is the problem - if we use same settings as 7zip, speed will be the same :-).

So it is better to have 2% worse compression and get a lot faster speed....
__________________
ConeXware, Inc.
latest PA release info on Facebook, Twitter | Follow us and win free PowerArchiver.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-07-2007, 12:25 PM
Virtual_ManPL
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by spwolf View Post
Here is the problem - if we use same settings as 7zip, speed will be the same :-).

So it is better to have 2% worse compression and get a lot faster speed....
Yep, I agree with You

But I was thinking that, PA use only modified code with some compilation improvement for todays procesors

Well, this topic should be closed now
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-20-2007, 10:05 AM
deity deity is offline
PA Super User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 58
Thanks: 3
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by spwolf View Post
Here is the problem - if we use same settings as 7zip, speed will be the same :-).

So it is better to have 2% worse compression and get a lot faster speed....
Hmm...packing
Vista x64(Atlon 64 3500+), PA 2007 beta, 7 zip 4.45 beta x64
PA- 1m24s
7z 4.45- 1m08s
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-20-2007, 11:11 AM
spwolf's Avatar
spwolf spwolf is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,823
Thanks: 682
Thanked 207 Times in 192 Posts
there are several things that might go there - like did you try compress each several times? For instance if you try 7z later, it will be faster since Windows cached the file already.

In our tests, it is 10% faster, and gets 1% less compression, with files that can be compressed (unlike driver installation you tried)... Testing can also vary based on type of file you are testing as well...
__________________
ConeXware, Inc.
latest PA release info on Facebook, Twitter | Follow us and win free PowerArchiver.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-20-2007, 11:24 AM
deity deity is offline
PA Super User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 58
Thanks: 3
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
In my tests in same cases(dif. files and queue) PA did best compression, but ALWAYS bad time...
I think it may be only for Vista x64... 7 zip - 64bit!!! and PA only 32 bit....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.