From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 21 12:29:21 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 AF9E1106564A for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:29:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ghirai@ghirai.com) Received: from ghirai.com (ghirai.com [195.74.52.87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786118FC0C for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:29:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ghirai@ghirai.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ghirai.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9A7216FC3 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:29:13 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:29:17 +0200 From: Ghirai To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20090321142917.e337dd8f.ghirai@ghirai.com> In-Reply-To: <200903201927.02238.mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> References: <20090321015316.87f9531b.ghirai@ghirai.com> <20090321015549.18863f97@gumby.homeunix.com> <200903201927.02238.mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 12:29:22 -0000 On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:27:02 -0800 Mel Flynn wrote: > 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 > 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.