I will assume that the average effective broadband connection is about 20 MB/s, and both xz and zstd decompressions are faster than the download under this assumption. But there are lesser known compression algorithms that are more efficient in terms of compression ratio for this target decompression speed, like zpaq [1], which are rarely considered as alternatives. So multiple factors exist here and I believe... - Source: Hacker News / about 1 month ago
My best bet is some data corrupted when plugging into windows. If it still works in windows I strongly recommend you backup important data on your drive. You can use 7z to compress, or zpaq which can achieve incredible compression rate in some cases. Source: 11 months ago
Yes, you can find more information on how it works on the zpaq's author website http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html. Source: over 1 year ago
There was a recent essay about the use of the QOI format for software/game assets. They're somewhat bigger than PNGs; however, I discovered that they compress really good with ZPAQ. Source: over 1 year ago
But when you need high compression rates, why not use something more innovative? ZPAQ is amazing - Journaling archiver for incremental backups There are plugins for total commander to ease managing, or gui linked at Matt Mahoney's page It offers better compression ratio than both Winrar and 7-Zip, for even more RAM and time to compress. The amazing part is not wasting energy and storage space for the same... Source: over 1 year ago
ZPAQ1 is great, it supports incremental backups and compression algorithm is really good even on already compressed data like images. Zpaqfranz2 is a fork that adds more advanced checksumming algorithms. It's also worth looking into. Source: over 1 year ago
I'd recommend checking out zpaq[1], it purposed for backups, and has great compression (even on low setting) for large 100GB+ file collections. However for smaller stuff I use zstd at level 22 in a tar for most things since it's much faster, though a little heavier. [1] http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html. - Source: Hacker News / almost 2 years ago
Ya probably grab the program they're named after. Source: almost 2 years ago
For this task it sounds like at least some of the ISOs may contain files, which are the same (duplicates). So you might try zpaq (by compression veteran Matt Mahoney, see other posts here): http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html. Source: almost 2 years ago
Now I use zpaq (http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html) Open source, fast, reliable, best compression I have ever seen, it beats RAR and 7zip. Almost forever incremental backups work great. It has 2 or 3 issues I can live with. Source: about 2 years ago
I use ZPAQ for incremental backups, it does compression and depuplication, making it easy to extract the state from any given time. Source: about 2 years ago
Check this out. Seems you can download the zip file and compile it on yourself. But I did not try it, so I am not sure if it will be useful. Source: about 2 years ago
If that is your taste, you should definitely take a look at zpaq [1] which uses an embedded bytecode with a not-too-long specification [2]. It is tuned for compression algorithms but any general algorithm can be programed; for example there is a project that turns zpaq into (slower) Brotli [3]. [1] http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html [2] http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq206.pdf [3] https://github.com/pothos/zpaqlpy. - Source: Hacker News / about 2 years ago
Winrar is proprietary and cost 33usd, 7zip is free open-source software, and compresses better :) (Actually an argument can be made that you should use Zpaq, it compresses even better than 7zip and is also FOSS, but it's not supported by common decompression programs like winrar or 7zip, meaning most people won't know how to decompress it. Compression sizes: ZIP: 45MB Winrar: 40MB 7zip: 33MB Zpaq: 30MB. Source: about 2 years ago
Use the better suited format zpaq - Journaling archiver for incremental backups There are plugins for total commander to ease managing, or gui linked there. Source: over 2 years ago
For long-term storing, have a look at ZPAQ, http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html. Source: over 2 years ago
There are some “hybrids” out there like Tarsnap, or Zpaq but most of them usually attempt to build on top of existing archiving tools. Please not that I have no idea if any of the above tools will eat your data. I’ve never used them, though I hear good things about tarsnap. Source: over 2 years ago
Might add zpaq (C++) - http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html to the list. - Source: Hacker News / over 2 years ago
Do you know an article comparing zpaq to other products?
Suggest a link to a post with product alternatives.
This is an informative page about zpaq. You can review and discuss the product here. The primary details have not been verified within the last quarter, and they might be outdated. If you think we are missing something, please use the means on this page to comment or suggest changes. All reviews and comments are highly encouranged and appreciated as they help everyone in the community to make an informed choice. Please always be kind and objective when evaluating a product and sharing your opinion.