Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:26898 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:2520
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!think!husc6!psuvax1!shire!deng
From: deng@shire (Mingqi Deng)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Archiver performance
Message-ID: <4417@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu>
Date: 31 Mar 89 20:52:40 GMT
References: <13488@steinmetz.ge.com> <5255@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu
Reply-To: deng@shire (Mingqi Deng)
Distribution: na
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 16

In article <13488@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>Here is an article I wrote for the _CAMS News_ describing some
>measurements I made of the various archivers around...

Just want to make two additional comments from my testing with LHARC
and ZIP:

   LHARC's performance is consistent when used with large and small
files, which is unfortunately not the case with PKZIP. Some big "tough"
files that ZIP performed worse than PKPAK (using the optimal option -ex
in PKZIP 0.92) are handled by LHARC well, too.
   
   LHARC's usually achieves a 10% extra compression than ZIP does. This
means LHARC is about 25% better than PKPAK in compression ratio.

Mingqi