Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu
From: zu@ethz.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Squashing is inefficient
Message-ID: <145@bernina.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jul-87 10:26:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: bernina.145
Posted: Thu Jul 23 10:26:45 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 11:56:56 EDT
Reply-To: zu@ethz.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen)
Distribution: world
Organization: ETH Zuerich, CS Department, Switzerland
Lines: 26

Hi Netlanders,

I followed the discussion concerning Arc and Pkarc. Usually I use
Pkarc because it's faster. But I patched it to use only the compression
algorythms which are compatible to SEA's arc. The other day some kind soul
posted zoo 1.50 to the net. Well, let's compare it to Arc and Pkarc.

I archived the same files with Zoo and Pkarc (version 3.5). I didn't measure
speed. but my feelings tell me that Pkarc is faster (no guarantee).

The archive made by Pkarc in the compatibility mode was about 8% smaller.

Let's go ahaed and build an archive with squashing enabled. I really was
surprised. All the files were squashed and the archive was ONLY 1% SMALLER
than the zoo-archive.

What's going on here? Why didn't Pkarc change the compression algorythm and
use squeeze on some of the files, for example?. The verbose listing showed
it to be more efficient.


		...urs


UUCP:     ...!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu
BITNET:   K261819 @ CZHRZU1A