Reconsidering 7z

Posted on:March 03 2011

The more I used 7-zip, the more I liked it. It compresses much better then for example .zip, and that's what it is good for. But I wouldn't recommend it for doing backups and similar. If there is one byte damaged, you usually can forget the whole archive. For .zip, every file is compressed separately, so it isn't that severe, if something goes wrong, it is usually possible to repair the damage or even work with it.

Comments:

Oh, good to know. I'm using 7z for some important file bunches. I've never experienced a damaged file but some HDDs which simply quit their job at all.

hermitC

Quote
2011-03-03 18:58:00

Thanks for that bit of good information!

My-Gate.NET

Quote
2011-03-03 22:19:00

Interesting info. Guess I'll stick with .zip then.

Brainsaw

Quote
2011-03-04 07:48:00

But whats with tar zipped files then?

Matthias

Quote
2011-03-04 23:15:00

FreeArc "http://www.freearc.org" compresses far much and faster too than any other archiver. It uses a mix of algorithms for different file types. It outperforms both in speed and compression any other utility. Only problem being that only freearc can open its archives unlike zip files (winrar for ex. opens almost all other files). Freearc also cannot make multiple archives directly, for which winrar is best.

kinjal kishor

Quote
2011-03-06 10:35:00

I do believe there's an option for solid archiving (or not). Solid archiving is on by default---I think thats why one byte change would break it. You can disable solid archiving if this is your concern....

Ralph

Quote
2011-03-11 14:17:00