rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (08/24/90)
I did some tests with several archivers during the last time. Here are the results: Tested programs: - PKZIP 1.10, DOS version - PKZIP 1.01, OS/2 version - PKPAK 3.61 - LHarc 1.14b - C-LHarc 1.02, OS/2 version, pure C program - compress 4.2, OS/2 version, pure C Program, optimized for Intel 286 - ZOO 2.01, OS/2 version - ARC 6.00, OS/2 version All the OS/2 programs are "family mode programs" that run also under DOS. Machine used for testing: - 80386/24 MHz, without instruction cache but with page interleaved memory - DOS 3.31 - the OS/2 versions were run under DOS, timings are nearly the same under OS/2 - working and temp directory were in a big RAM disk to remove influences from the hard disk system - the files to be compressed were put into a single tar archive file to reduce influences from screen output for each file's messages, thus only one file had to be compressed. Results were ordered by compressed file size. 1. text files, 839680 bytes Archiver compressing uncompressing compressed size ---------------------------------------------------------------- PKZIP 1.10: 35.48s 3.46s 337685 bytes PKZIP 1.01: 43.01s 4.18s 339054 bytes PAK 2.01: 43.67s 8.62s 347138 bytes C-LHarc 1.02: 142.19s 39.60s 357529 bytes LHarc 1.14b: 53.55s 17.90s 357550 bytes compress 4.2: 17.24s 8.67s 361153 bytes PKPAK 3.61: 6.81s 5.11s 394569 bytes ZOO 2.01: 21.81s 12.91s 406804 bytes ARC 6.00: 23.40s 12.36s 422987 bytes 2. C and Assembler source files, 901120 bytes Archiver compressing uncompressing compressed size ---------------------------------------------------------------- PKZIP 1.10: 41.09s 2.96s 210219 bytes PKZIP 1.01: 56.90s 3.57s 210462 bytes PAK 2.01: 43.39s 7.52s 218513 bytes C-LHarc 1.02: 173.89s 33.01s 230756 bytes LHarc 1.14b: 63.61s 14.44s 230762 bytes compress 4.2: 16.65s 8.51s 297173 bytes PKPAK 3.61: 6.76s 5.05s 336255 bytes ZOO 2.01: 20.22s 12.52s 339545 bytes ARC 6.00: 21.47s 11.81s 367388 bytes 3. Executable binary files, 921600 bytes Archiver compressing uncompressing compressed size ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAK 2.01: 49.43s 12.80s 576369 bytes C-LHarc 1.02: 157.63s 75.31s 576963 bytes LHarc 1.14b: 66.41s 32.95s 576985 bytes PKZIP 1.10: 40.48s 4.23s 577748 bytes PKZIP 1.01: 47.18s 5.05s 578831 bytes compress 4.2: 22.79s 11.81s 685667 bytes PKPAK 3.61: 9.34s 6.92s 736810 bytes ZOO 2.01: 34.82s 18.29s 741986 bytes ARC 6.00: 34.55s 17.64s 751519 bytes (the difference in compresses file size is not significant among the five best programs) An astonishing result is the good performance and time/compression ratio of compress. No other comments on the other results :-) No, I don't want to start another discussion about your favourite archiver ... -- /* Kai Uwe Rommel * Munich * rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */
nol2321@dsacg4.dsac.dla.mil (Jim Dunn) (08/25/90)
What? I noticed someone mentioned LHARC v1.14b? I only have v1.13! Could someone post, or e-mail PLEASE! :) Jim jdunn@dsac.dla.mil
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK) (08/25/90)
In article <2430@dsacg4.dsac.dla.mil> nol2321@dsacg4.dsac.dla.mil (Jim Dunn) writes: >What? I noticed someone mentioned LHARC v1.14b? I only have v1.13! >Could someone post, or e-mail PLEASE! Don't bother. As far as I know they are the same except for the version number. It would seem to be a just naming confusion. But if you insist, the renamed version is available by anonymous ftp eg from Simtel20 or chyde.uwasa.fi. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
mcastle@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Mike Castle {Nexus}) (04/26/91)
Ooops, I meant to change the subject of my post concerning the different archive methods to something a bit more appropriate. Sorry for the extra bandwidth. -- mrc -- Mike Castle (Nexus) s087891@umrvma.umr.edu or mcastle@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu Feel lonely? Want someone to send you e-mail? Just post to *.test with a Reply-To: field, and watch your mailbox explode!!