Re: speed in extracting rar files - unrar vs. 7z
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:53:16AM +0200, Ghirai wrote: Hey, Does anyone know a faster way of extracting big rar files, or why is it so slow? I did a quick test with time (extracting the same ~800MiB file, consisting of split archives): unrar: real 4m29.637s user 0m4.969s sys 0m3.131s 7z: real 3m50.020s user 0m4.784s sys 0m1.821s In your place I'd try the archivers/rar port which is the commercial implementation from rarlab.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: speed in extracting rar files - unrar vs. 7z
do you have softdep enabled. if no, and the are lot of small files, it may be this. you said CPU load is low ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: speed in extracting rar files - unrar vs. 7z
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:27:02 -0800 Mel Flynn mel.flynn+fbsd.questi...@mailing.thruhere.net wrote: On Friday 20 March 2009 17:55:49 RW wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:53:16 +0200 Ghirai ghi...@ghirai.com wrote: The shareware WinRAR on windows seems to be better implemented (?), as it uses both cores to the fullest, and as such the time needed to extract stuff is a lot shorter. IIRC the unix version is portable C, but winrar has a lot of CPU specific optimizations. Among which, being single threaded on unix: % ldd /usr/local/bin/unrar /usr/local/bin/unrar: libstdc++.so.6 = /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0x280ad000) libm.so.5 = /lib/libm.so.5 (0x281a1000) libgcc_s.so.1 = /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x281bb000) libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x281c6000) Since disk can read faster then the decompression, a threadpool would be able to use both CPU's for decompressing and speed things up. At least in theory, but certainly on large files with SATA disks. I believe 7z uses bigger buffers, which would explain the marginal difference in runtime. -- Mel That sounds about right, thanks. This is too bad really, seeing as multicore has gained a lot of traction, and seems to be getting even more popular in the future. I forgot to state that the disks are SATA300, and i ran WinRAR on the same hardware as unrar/7z. -- Regards, Ghirai. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
speed in extracting rar files - unrar vs. 7z
Hey, Does anyone know a faster way of extracting big rar files, or why is it so slow? I did a quick test with time (extracting the same ~800MiB file, consisting of split archives): unrar: real4m29.637s user0m4.969s sys 0m3.131s 7z: real3m50.020s user0m4.784s sys 0m1.821s While not a very good test, as i was having other apps idling around at the time, i did notice that neither of them were fully utilizing the CPU (Core2Duo E6550, clocked at 2.9GHz). Usage was ~8% at most. As you can see, 7z is marginally faster. The shareware WinRAR on windows seems to be better implemented (?), as it uses both cores to the fullest, and as such the time needed to extract stuff is a lot shorter. If this an implementation problem in unrar/7z, or is it the scheduler's 'fault' so to speak? Or does it have something to do with disk IO? If so, how do i check, and how can it be improved? Looking at top again, while extracting, showed both apps' state to be getblk most of the time, if it matters. I'm running 7.1-RELEASE, i386, generic kernel. Any ideas/thoughts? -- Regards, Ghirai. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: speed in extracting rar files - unrar vs. 7z
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:53:16 +0200 Ghirai ghi...@ghirai.com wrote: The shareware WinRAR on windows seems to be better implemented (?), as it uses both cores to the fullest, and as such the time needed to extract stuff is a lot shorter. IIRC the unix version is portable C, but winrar has a lot of CPU specific optimizations. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: speed in extracting rar files - unrar vs. 7z
On Friday 20 March 2009 17:55:49 RW wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:53:16 +0200 Ghirai ghi...@ghirai.com wrote: The shareware WinRAR on windows seems to be better implemented (?), as it uses both cores to the fullest, and as such the time needed to extract stuff is a lot shorter. IIRC the unix version is portable C, but winrar has a lot of CPU specific optimizations. Among which, being single threaded on unix: % ldd /usr/local/bin/unrar /usr/local/bin/unrar: libstdc++.so.6 = /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0x280ad000) libm.so.5 = /lib/libm.so.5 (0x281a1000) libgcc_s.so.1 = /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x281bb000) libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x281c6000) Since disk can read faster then the decompression, a threadpool would be able to use both CPU's for decompressing and speed things up. At least in theory, but certainly on large files with SATA disks. I believe 7z uses bigger buffers, which would explain the marginal difference in runtime. -- Mel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
