But decompression is the operation you are using most with archives.deus-ex wrote:I don't use this compressor to archive any important data, it's just for testing purposes finding the best possible compression result. I was hoping for this archiver to evolve in time, but apparently the author of Nanozip has shifted his focus, probably due to real life constraints.MVV wrote:Isn't it reckless to pack files w/o checksums using beta archiver?
Indeed, in single-threaded mode Nanozip is quite time consuming. If you have a multi-core CPU try increasing the number of compressors used in parallel (-p#). E.g. for a quad-core CPU use -p4, for hexa-core use -p6. The speed-increase is quite incredible, depending on the data to compress it surpasses 7-Zip in terms of compression (better) and required time (less). But Nanozip's decompression speed is by far worse compared to 7-Zip's performance.Are there any really reasonable pros that NanoZip offers in compare to more popular archivers? In my little tests it was significantly better than 7-Zip only with really time consuming mode. And unfortunately unpacking in such mode is also terribly slow, not only packing. Also, it is interesting how about memory consumption - is unpacking requires also 5 GB of RAM?
So its just a useles new tool which also doesn't get any more updates since a long time.
