Zip performance

Howell

Howell

0
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,740
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Deos anyone have performance comparison numbers between:
NTFS compression
Windows Zip
Winzip
7zip

I need to balance ease of use with space and processor utilization.
 
FYI, Windows compression uses LZNT1, a derivative of LZ77. Therefore has the same performance as any other LZ77 implementation.

Here is one comparison of common tools: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/winrar-winzip-7-zip-magicrar,3436.html (short answer: 7zip).

Mind you, ease of use, nothing will beat NTFS compression since it's largely transparent.

PS. deepest apologies for linking TomsHardware, but was the first one found.
 
The problem with applying NTFS compression to everything is that you're going to waste a crap-ton of cycles trying to compress files that are already compressed in their native format. It might be worthwhile for a drive that's full of text files and logs but most userland data is just going to be accessed a little more slowly.
 
Mercutio said:
The problem with applying NTFS compression to everything is that you're going to waste a crap-ton of cycles trying to compress files that are already compressed in their native format. It might be worthwhile for a drive that's full of text files and logs but most userland data is just going to be accessed a little more slowly.
Click to expand...

I can see turning it on on smallish SSDs only if the processing power is enough to make up the difference.
 
Why don't you test it on your typical data? I find them all more or less similar for practical purposes. That is, unless the data is highly compressible, it is not worth the time.
One thing I use compression for are TIB files, but the software does that internally. The other are some e-mails, where the attachment is near the limit or the format is execution.
 
Howell said:
I can see turning it on on smallish SSDs only if the processing power is enough to make up the difference.
Click to expand...

No chance - it only made sense when disk I/O was slow compared to CPU power. Don't forget that most lossless algorithms don't see significant speed benefits beyond 2 CPU cores.
 
If you actually want to compress your data, the zip formats are fairly useless with most file types. Of the listed alternatives, only 7-Zip is worth considering (using its native 7z format).

Of course, it is always a waste of time compressing already-compressed data. Am immediately obvious conclusion can be drawn that realtime compression (eg NTFS) is now a waste of time, because most of the sizeable files these days are likely to be jpeg, mpeg, 7z, etc.
 
time said:
Of course, it is always a waste of time compressing already-compressed data. Am immediately obvious conclusion can be drawn that realtime compression (eg NTFS) is now a waste of time, because most of the sizeable files these days are likely to be jpeg, mpeg, 7z, etc.
Click to expand...
You could selectively apply compression only to folders which don't contain already compressed formats. Even my Windows folder compresses by over 10%. That doesn't sound like much, but I'm gaining over 2 GB just from that. NTFS compression seems to be mild enough that CPU time isn't a concern. Or at least I didn't notice my machine booting any more slowly after I compressed the boot drive.
 
I must be showing my age because when I read "Zip performance", I thought Howell must have been playing with an old Iomega drive for shits and giggles.
 
LiamC said:
I must be showing my age because when I read "Zip performance", I thought Howell must have been playing with an old Iomega drive for shits and giggles.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, we're all getting old here... (as the grey hairs are starting to show).

Never had a lot to do with Zip disks, not until the Jazz drives where on the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top