MOONLIGHT SONATA Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Hey UA-Addicts!I've made one month ago an SFX 7-Zip Archive for my Drivers. The Drivers.Exe made thereby had Final Size of 46.1 MB, while the Uncompressed Drivers Folder was of 253 MB size. Parameters used during Compression were as follows:Archive : Drivers.EXEArchive Format : 7zCompression Level : UltraCompression Method: LZMADictionary Size: 32 MBWord Size: 64Update Mode : Add and Replace FilesOptions : Create SFX ArchiveAnd Nothing else.Now, today, I included another folder inside Drivers Folder which is named INTELINF and which contains all the .INF files for Intel-Based Drivers. The Size of this IntelINF folder is only 584 KB. So the total Size of Drivers Folder now stands at 253 MB+584 KB ~ = 254 MB. Then i got thunderstrike. With all the above compression criteria applied again, this Driver folder is now 7-Zipped into an SFX archive, named Drivers.EXE. Final Size is now, 115 MB. In vain i tried a few things, that i wish to narrate:1. Increased the Dictionary Size to 64 MB, result is just reduction by 1 MB. Drivers.EXE is now resized to 114 MB. 2. I started with previously built Drivers.EXE of 46.1 MB Size. Extracted it and then tried to make the sfx archive from the folder that is just extracted. Size of the Drivers folder is 253 MB, same as it was one month ago. At least, this size has no change! Now, surprise after surprise, 253 MB is compressed into 85 MB.Can anybody feel my plight? I'm completely speechless and wish to be headless any moment. In all the cases i used 7-Zip 4.24 Beta version.I'm in urgent need of help. Please comment, ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmx Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 are you sure about these settings? the second time?Compression Level : UltraCompression Method: LZMADictionary Size: 32 MBWord Size: 64Update Mode : Add and Replace Files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOONLIGHT SONATA Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 @gmxSure absolutely. No doubt about that. I just wish if someone just dismantle their SFX archive and rebuild again to check if same size is achieved again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seapagan Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 This is just an off-the wall thought ... are you sure you are not including your original 'drivers.exe' in the new archives by mistake? The numbers you quote for filesizes are pretty close to multiples of the size you quoted for the drivers.exe.....Even changing the compression methods should not result in that much of a size increase.SP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOONLIGHT SONATA Posted September 16, 2005 Author Share Posted September 16, 2005 @seapagan,Sorry mate, no chance of including any already packaged Drivers.EXE inside the new archive. Before posting the problem I checked if i've done the mistake as stated by you.Nope. I've seen the same scenario to happen in another PC of my friend. What I request you or any forum member is to just unpack the same archive if you've made any, and try to repack it again with the same set of options that i've used. If possible, just try it in a temporary directory and please let me know the outcome. Your feedback is too important for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcBlackBox Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Hi Moonlight Sonata,I just did a quick test on 25Mb of mp3s. Same settings as you, but I'm using v4.23 not the beta.Archived, extracted, add an additional 50Kb file to it, re-archived again. Roughly the same size. Perhaps there's something going on with v4.24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seapagan Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 I just tested on a folder with about 32 Mb or assorted file types, then added 500Kb more. the 7z files were approx the same sizes.I'm using 7-Zip version 4.26 beta.SP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOONLIGHT SONATA Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 @vcBlackBox & seapagan,Thanks for the all testings done. Your comments really delighted me as now I know certainly that 4.24b had some inconsistency issues. Now, which one gives better compression result, 4.23 or 4.26? Can you please inform me that by percentage how much compression these versions achieve and replicates therafter, so that I can decide which version to use.Thanks, for your overwhelming response. Just post one more comment to "postkill" this thread and my worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seapagan Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Looking at the changelogs on their site, it seems that differences between 4.23 and 4.26 beta is mostly bug fixes and language additions. They probably have comparable compression, or certainly not enough difference that you are going to notice in compressing the number of files you are talking about. If you are happy using beta software go for 4.26b, otherwise stay on 4.23.SP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now