PA 21.00.18 running on Windows 7 64 bit.
I made a big .PA file and thought I’d check it was made correctly with Menu / Actions / Test.
Discovered:
a) PA always issues a UAC prompt to do this!
b) PA always says there are many errors in PA files.
WinRAR 5 has a rather useful option in some cases, which is to be able to create an archive by replacing identical files with a reference to the first occurrence (hardlink) within the archive.
In case you choose to convert the file with PowerArchiver to another format, however, the resulting archive does not have all the files. It does not consider those that were present as hardlinks.
If you do a normal extraction of the RAR archive instead, even with PowerArchivier, all the files are extracted correctly.
PA2009 Compression Ratio
-
I am a registered user and I’m using PA2009 Beta 5. I’m just curious about why when compressing some files & folders in PA2009 and compressing the same files & folders in 7-Zip would end up with different size files. I used ultra compression in both and used 7z as the archive type in PA2009.
PA2009 result: 19,256kb
7-Zip result: 16,779kbI still use PA2009 because it stores the relative folder info and 7-Zip does not (at least I couldn’t find that option in 7-Zip). I don’t think that the relative folder info alone would cause that much size difference. I’m not sure what the results would be with previous PA versions.
Any ideas?
BudmanWV
-
Welcome to PowerArchiver forums, Budmanwv!
-
I am a registered user and I’m using PA2009 Beta 5. I’m just curious about why when compressing some files & folders in PA2009 and compressing the same files & folders in 7-Zip would end up with different size files. I used ultra compression in both and used 7z as the archive type in PA2009.
PA2009 result: 19,256kb
7-Zip result: 16,779kbI still use PA2009 because it stores the relative folder info and 7-Zip does not (at least I couldn’t find that option in 7-Zip). I don’t think that the relative folder info alone would cause that much size difference. I’m not sure what the results would be with previous PA versions.
Any ideas?
BudmanWV
there shouldnt be such difference - are you using Optimized? If so, turn it off.
In our testings, I have not seen difference than is bigger than 0.01%.
-
are you by any chance using queue? There was an bug in b5 where queue did not use the ultra settings for 7z.
-
I was not using the Queue. However, I was also not using the “Create Solid Archive” option. Using that option, I did the another comparison and here are the results:
PA2009: 16,796kb
7-Zip: 16,779kbThat is close enough for me. Thanks for the suggestions and help.
Budman
-
there shouldnt be such difference - are you using Optimized? If so, turn it off.
In our testings, I have not seen difference than is bigger than 0.01%.
Hmm…Optimized Compression not so good…not so smart…
-
-
haha, what is not so smart about it?
http://www.powerarchiver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3262
PowerArchiver tries to smartly detect files ```but after such smart compressed files size bigger then common -
[
but after such smart compressed files size bigger then common
and the compressin speed higher then common.](but after such [color]smart[/color] compressed files size bigger then common
and the compressin speed higher then common.) -
@NTFS:
and the compressin speed higher then common.
may be so,
indeed
