From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 21 03:27:06 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0194E106564A for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:27:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net) Received: from mail.rachie.is-a-geek.net (rachie.is-a-geek.net [66.230.99.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9335E8FC08 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:27:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net) Received: from dspam.mail.rachie.is-a-geek.net (mail.lan.rachie.is-a-geek.net [192.168.2.101]) by mail.rachie.is-a-geek.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B525AAFBD9A for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:27:03 -0800 (AKDT) Received: from smoochies.rachie.is-a-geek.net (smoochies.rachie.is-a-geek.net [192.168.1.50]) by mail.rachie.is-a-geek.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B2AAFBD99; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:27:02 -0800 (AKDT) Received: by smoochies.rachie.is-a-geek.net (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 5258F8442B; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:27:02 -0800 (AKDT) From: Mel Flynn To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:27:02 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (FreeBSD/8.0-CURRENT; KDE/4.2.0; i386; ; ) References: <20090321015316.87f9531b.ghirai@ghirai.com> <20090321015549.18863f97@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20090321015549.18863f97@gumby.homeunix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903201927.02238.mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Processed: Fri Mar 20 19:27:03 2009 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 1.0000 X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 98689407 chance of being spam X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0023 X-DSPAM-Signature: 14,49c45e87203391032310510 X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, but, 0.40000, but, 0.40000, extract+stuff, 0.40000, both+CPU's, 0.40000, Received*Fri+20, 0.40000, Received*Fri+20, 0.40000, on+unix, 0.40000, fullest+and, 0.40000, implemented, 0.40000, =>+/lib/libm, 0.40000, /lib/libgcc_s+so, 0.40000, Received*from+smoochies.rachie.is, 0.40000, buffers, 0.40000, (0x281bb000)+libc, 0.40000, lot+of, 0.40000, Received*(Postfix+from, 0.40000, Subject: Re: speed in extracting rar files - unrar vs. 7z X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:27:06 -0000 On Friday 20 March 2009 17:55:49 RW wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:53:16 +0200 > > Ghirai 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