I'm not surprised that the 7zip format produced smaller files than the zip format (result 2/4 vs result 1/3), as it generally compresses better than zip. The surprising results (the sizes of files generated by the 7zip tool) were as follows: At the very least, method 2 would avoid the overhead of multiple zip files. My assumption was that under either compression scheme, the file generated by method 2 would be smaller or at least the same size as the file generated by method 1, as you might be able to exploit efficiencies by considering all the files together. With method 2, a single compressed file would be created containing A.txt, A.html, A.xml, B.txt, B.html, B.xml, C.txt, C.html, and C.xml. With method 1, a single compressed file would be created containing A.zip, B.zip and C.zip. Compress the unzipped contents of the zip files into a compressed file and send that file ( combined.zip/7z)įor example, say that I have 3 zip files, A.zip, B.zip and C.zip, each of which contains one text file, one html file, and one XML file.Compress all the zip files into a compressed file and send that file ( single.zip/7z).I looked into two different ways of doing it, each using two different compression schemes, zip and 7zip (which I understand is either LZMA or a variant thereof): I want to distribute all these files together to users in as small a format as possible.
In total, the zip files total 146 megabytes unzipped, their contents total 551mb.
#7ZIP VS PEAZIP 2015 ZIP FILE#
Each zip file contains a number of similar text, html, xml, and jpg files. I have a number of zip files that I need to distribute to users, around 130 of them.
0 kommentar(er)
