![]() ![]() In WinRAR’s Options tab, the “Delete mode” option was grayed out in RAR5, but I was OK with what I believe was its default “Delete files” option. The purpose of delta compression was said to be to “Allow WinRAR to improve compression of structured table data using an algorithm specially optimized for this data type.” I was not sure I had much data of that type, but there appeared to be no drawback to checking that option, so I did. Of the options discussed there, only delta and 32-bit executable compression options were available in RAR5. The documentation said it was usually best not to change these. In WinRAR’s Advanced tab, I left all boxes unchecked except “Wait if other WinRAR copies are active.” The “When done” option defaulted to “Keep PC running.” The Compression button led to advanced compression parameters. For “Update mode,” I used the default: “Add and replace files.” For “Archiving options,” in this test, I checked only the “Create solid archive” box. I did not use the “Split to volumes” or “Set password” options. But when I tried it, despite not having much of a workload running, I got an error indicating that there was not enough RAM – so I used the 256MB setting instead. I liked to believe that, with 32GB RAM, I would have plenty for the 512MB dictionary setting. The documentation said that a dictionary size larger than the recommended 32MB or 64MB would produce better but slower compression and would require about 6x as much memory – so, for example, choosing a 1GiB dictionary would require 6GiB of free RAM. The “Compression method” setting in the General tab was yet to be determined for now, I left it at Normal. In WinRAR’s General tab, for best compression, what appeared to be the best available WinRAR documentation recommended using the RAR5 option (confusingly labeled as simply “RAR”), rather than the older RAR4 or ZIP options. The following paragraphs discuss the settings in the Test profile that I used for this post’s benchmarking. In this discussion, I used the approach of opening WinRAR by right-clicking on a file in Windows File Explorer and choosing the WinRAR option. There were different ways to view WinRAR’s options. That section discusses additional WinRAR features (e.g., recovery record) and concludes that, for my purposes, the best results came from a combination of Borg’s lz4 algorithm plus WinRAR’s Fast setting. The last section of this post turns to a study of WinRAR compression of files produced by the Borg deduplicating program. It appeared that WinRAR’s creators should review the program’s calibration – and perhaps boil the six compression levels down to four (e.g., Best, Normal, Fastest, and Store) – so as to establish real and useful differences among the available settings. ![]() In short, there were some notable irregularities in the effectiveness of WinRAR compression. Media (i.e., video, audio, image) files generally achieved only 1-2% additional compression from Fast rather than Fastest compression. eml) could benefit from those higher settings to a lesser degree. Files that were mostly but not entirely text (e.g. Pure text files were the primary exception: higher settings could produce as much as roughly 1% of additional (though potentially very much slower) compression. (Note also an earlier comparison against 7-zip.)Īs detailed below, my study of a number of common Windows filetypes yielded the conclusion that there was virtually no benefit from using any WinRAR compression setting more intensive than Fast. This post attempts to answer that question. I had been using WinRAR for some time but aside from one brief prior inquiry, I had not made any serious effort to figure out which WinRAR settings produced the best results for my purposes. I was using WinRAR 6.11 圆4 on a Windows 10 Pro system with an Intel Core i7-4790 CPU and 32GB DDR3 RAM.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |