[elit]

Originally Posted by PrinceGupta2000

In repacking we compress once and decompress many times ~ the answer for all ur arguments
RZ takes more time for compression but decompress faster then lzma with compression benefit ofc same goes for lolz srep etc

RZ take *way* too long and results are diminishing, I tried it again few days ago this time on ~12+gb game(with decompiled/decompressed resources). Srep even hurt it but also without, gain was like nothing. RZ gave me 6.4gb without srep and 6.5gb with srep, while FA -m5+srep gave me around 6.6-6.7gb. FA packed it in few minutes while RZ took night. Frankly I dont get all the fuss about RZ and the like, its a slow garbage with diminishing returns, srep + non-aggressive lzma can come so close to it for under 3% loss most of the time.

He also said "Even if i sacrifice some MB, better compression / decompression speed is desirable" so no it does not answer his arguments. Furthermore, while I agree that decompressing speed is more important, I dont agree about its exclusivity. Unless you are repacker who upload your repacks to the world, chances are you are likely only going to decompress on occasion. But wasting day and night compressing for marginal gain is crazy.

Originally Posted by artag

Ok, it seems there is a missunderstanding here. I don't use the builting methods of FA.
lzma on FA only use two cores and has some speed issues during decompression.
7zip LZMA2 can use more than 2 cores and it has increased speed during compression,
also during decompression thanks to skipped uncompressable blocks.
I know about 4x4 lzma, but the memory scales too much during compression if i use a larger
block, with 7zip i can use 2 or 3 threads and save memory if i want larger blocks.

you can use 7zip as external like this:

[CODE][External compressor:7zip]

I see, first thank you for config snippets, when I have time I will definitely give it try. With that said, when you say lzma on FA only use 2 cores its again flag dependent. -mx use only 2, -m5 use 4. Or more precisely, 7z use lzma2 while FA use 4xlzma1(or 2xlzma1 as one can use 2 cores I believe). For decompression again I cant see 7zip beating FA because regardless how you compress with 7z it only use 1 core during decompression from what I know. Sure its better now if it can skip through uncompresseable data but so can do FA and with 4 cores in use. Also, I cant see how FA use "too much memory" in 4x4 mode when it is known to have a hardcoded limitation(its only 32bit after all). FA use around same much memory in -mx and -m5, in -mx it allocate 176mb dictionary+2 cores, while in -m5 96mb dict+4x4.

I think what you are trying to say is that in same 2core compression mode, 7z is better than FA. Which I think is true, but it was your decision not to use -m5(or any build in methods as you mentioned). I have made many tests outside this topic, I never saw once srep+FA -mx having any significant gain over srep+FA -m5. Without srep that would be different though. I will try again srep+7z with your settings though.

Originally Posted by 78372

7z LZMA2 skips incompressible data and can do multithreading better.

Will try it how well it "skips", though multithreading as mentioned already is only good for compression. There are people here willing to waste days on marginal compression, saying decompression speed matter most, yet many of them have no problem with limiting single threaded decompression of 7z. Go figure. Me it bothered a lot when I used 7z in the past, before I discovered FA.