Expand.exe vs Cabarc.exe - extracting files

[tomasz86]

I was wondering if there's any difference in speed when extracting files using expand.exe and cabarc.exe so I've just done a simple test. I took all *.*_ files from XP SP3 (2674 files total), put them into a folder called "1" and then expanded all of them into a new folder called "2".

1. 
   

   EXPAND -R 1\* 2\ >NUL

   
   Time: 0:42
   

2. 
   

   FOR /F "delims=" %%A IN ('DIR/B/S 1') DO cabarc x "%%A" 2\ >NUL

   
   Time: 0:33
   

3. 
   

   FOR /F "delims=" %%A IN ('DIR/B/S 1') DO EXPAND -R "%%A" 2\ >NUL

   
   Time: 6:08
   

Cabarc.exe is almost 25% faster than Expand.exe when used like in 1. and 2. but if you use Expand.exe in a loop like 3. then it's time to switch to Cabarc.exe since the difference in speed is huge.

[bphlpt]

From what you show above, I don't see any situation where using Expand is faster than Cabarc.

I wonder if there are any speed improvements over here when using the versions that include an "-r" option, vs using a FOR loop, when that capability is required.

Cheers and Regards

Edited April 5, 2013 by bphlpt

[tomasz86]

I wanted to say that Cabarc is always faster but the difference isn't that dramatic in case of 1. and 2. On the other hand, 2. is MUCH faster than 3.

Edited April 5, 2013 by tomasz86

[jaclaz]

And how would 7-zip compare?

jaclaz

[tomasz86]

7-Zip

1. 
   

   7z.exe x 1\* -o"2" >NUL

   
   Time: 0:24
   

2. 
   

   FOR /F "delims=" %%A IN ('DIR/B/S 1') DO 7z.exe x "%%A" -o"2" >NUL

   
   Time: 1:08
   

Edited April 5, 2013 by tomasz86

[jaclaz]

Strange results.

I mean it is obvious that going through a FOR /F loop in batch should eat some time, but while 7-zip (as expected ) is prolly faster than both EXPAND and CABARC, when using the wildcard specification, it is greatly slower through the loop.

This should mean that *somehow* 7-zip is very "slow" at initializing or that cabarc (that you have necessarily timed only in the FOR loop) is d@mn fast at it.

Which version of cabarc.exe did you test ?

There could be some differences, I have an oldish:

Microsoft ® Cabinet Tool - Version 1.00.0601 (03/18/97) <- 114.688 byte

And:

Microsoft ® Cabinet Tool - Version 5.00.2134.1 <- 65.808 byte

Microsoft ® Cabinet Tool - Version 5.1.2600.0 <- 62.976 byte

Same goes for Expand.exe and for 7-zip (actually I think there are probably more versions of it that stars in the sky)

But can you try also 7za.exe?

I suspect that the extra time is because 7z is not "standalone" whilost 7za is

BTW (and as a side note) 7zip may have (actually has) issues with CASE of filenames.

jaclaz

[tomasz86]

It was cabarc.exe 6.2.9200.16438 (from Windows 8), expand.exe 6.1.7600.16385 from Windows 7 and 7z.exe 9.20.0.0. All tests were conducted in Windows 2000.

I'll try to check other versions later.