Let's talk about archiving software. I've just reinstalled my desktop and I'm looking to get the best. It's still 7Zip...

Today I learned about zstd. Today is a good day.

Technically, among libre archivers some variant of the PAQ family is probably still king in terms of compression (see e.g. zpaq), but there's no decent GUI for that and 7-Zip obviously supports all other frequently encountered archive formats.

A solved problem for a long time, but not solvable (unless you're running a recent version of Win10 with an optional flag turned on) with reasonable use of the Win32 API alone.

For whatever reason I find NTFS formatted usb sticks tend to corrupt. It's especially bad if you want to use them on anything other than windows. I wish Microsoft would just implement ext4 support for external drives and allow that to become the industry standard. Of course we can't have nice things so the best option for cross platform documents and other small files in the current year is still fucking fat32.

I've tried out zpaq, both on its own, and as a backend for lrzip where it is applied after the rzip preprocessing, and I find that xz tends to be faster, and usually slightly better.

what kind of file paths are we talking about here ?
I've never encountered any problems

thanks, i'll try it

To add to that, the maximum path length supported by the NTFS driver is 32,000 UTF-16 code points, with every character except for the backslash (even NUL, although that's incompatible with POSIX file systems) allowed. Everything else is a limitation of Windows.

What's wrong with exFAT? It's natively supported in Vista+, macOS and Android, and the FUSE driver for Linux/BSD just works.

ReFS should be included in Windows 10

tar doesn't have options to set max compression of xz compression. xz is a separate program.
You can define max compression params as an env variable, or you can pipe tar to xz, but the latter takes more memory.
unix.stackexchange.com/questions/28976/how-to-xz-a-directory-with-tar-using-maximum-compression
XZ_OPT=-9e tar cJf tarfile.tar.xz directory

Don't use 7zip to archive gnu+linux stuff. It doesn't preserve permissions.

yes, 7 zip is still best option

[spoiler]other than winrar[/spoiler]

use copy for movies and music
and split them if they're big

Yes

You want to be careful about using the "e" option; sometimes it actually has a worse result, and it takes a lot more time.

don't use xz
nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html

i still hate that microsoft reimplemented path canonization in their std::filesystem but were too lazy to force the win32 api to use the not retardedly gimped path character limit via \\?\

file-roller

>nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html

That's written by the lzip author and is entirely based on a viewpoint of old school data recovery, favoring the ability to recover some of the data from a corrupted file, over having better compression. I think that viewpoint is obsolete; and that the ability to recover corrupted output data from a damaged archive is worthless.

Rather than risking losing only a single block (which would still render many modern file formats unusable) from a lightly compressed lzip file with a small block size, it seems better to me to use the additional space savings from using a better performing compression tool like xz, to store par2 recovery files along with the archival data, maintain an independent copy in a different location, or use both options.

Why count on being able to recover "some" of the data from a corrupt archive, when you can use the efficiency gains to make sure you have a much lower risk of data loss requiring recovery?

winrar is where it's at bruv

This, no reason to change what's working.

p7z, remember to set good compression and set the threads flag to speed things up.
Compress files from one drive to another to reduce the hdd bottle neck.

lrzip if size is most important
lz4/hc if speed is most important
zstd otherwise

>and is entirely based on a viewpoint of old school data recovery
And that's how I know that you only skimmed through the abstract.

>lz4/hc if speed is most important
Was LZ4_HC merged with the normal LZ4 project? The only links I find for LZ4_HC lead me to a non-existent Google repo.

looked it up, and it seems to be the case
i don't recall lz4hc being separate, so i think it was already together when i first used it

I'm on 7zip, but I miss the winrar icons.

Attached: square-1489520090-winrar.png (480x480, 107K)

i was more of a winzip kiddo myself
(mainly due to coming on my Internet Magazine discs, i didn't even have internet access at the time)

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.png (640x480, 44K)

Weeding a bit through old commit messages it appears that the two projects were merged in 2012, so fairly early on. HC was initially an additional compression mode with its own flag, until they integrated it in the compression level option (levels 10-12 if I understand correctly).

i did look through man and --help for hc, which i could have sworn was an option, but yea, then i went to github

I prefer portable version of 7-zip

How could we know whar works the best for you, retard?

thanks pal, you're a genius.

>Today I learned about zstd
Zombie sexually transmitted disease?

z standard, a fairly new compression algorithm made by facebook
it basically replaces gzip, since it compresses just as well as gzip, while being considerably faster to compress/decompress than gzip
it's a solid middle-ground, the one you'd pick if you have no specific needs and just want your shit to be smaller

>dude give me those Cindy Crawford and Geri Halliwell nudes
>ok sure where's your diskette
>shit they're like 1.5MB you have a second disk?
>no, fuck don't jew me, give me all of them
>ok let me try zipping them up
>oh good it's 1.3MB now
>thank you WinZip!

winzip can also make split archives
at one point in time i think it was the /only/ way i knew how to move a file bigger than 1.38M from one computer to another

>friend has worms armageddon
>bring over multiple floppies one day
>make a split archive of just the games' main executable
>fuck yes
>extract it on my machine
>Missing , reinstall or whatever.
fuck

I'm currently in the process of compressing somewhat large video archives (clips looped to music by concatenating them without reencoding, so they compress quite well). Efficiency-wise it's currently a tie between zstd and lrzip. xz and 7z perform quite good as well. gzip, bzip2, lzip and LZ4 perform poorly (as expected).
What are some other alternatives that I could test?

exFAT is garbage. It's not journaled, and it doesn't even use multiple tables like FAT did. If the allocation table becomes corrupt, you're fucked. It's only superior to FAT32 in that it supports far larger file sizes. It's supported in fewer places though, and the lack of journaling makes it inferior to even NTFS for use on removable media.

bump

Yeah, I should have mentioned there were caveats, they're mentioned in the link I provided.

I thought it was supposed to be more efficient than gzip as well?

i love 7zip