Shelwien's Reflate compatible with Freearc - Page 2

felice2011 · #16 30-09-2016, 10:22

OK to the disadvantages, but unlike reflateMT already tested, which advantages? only shows progress when compressing and decompressing?

Razor12911 · #17 30-09-2016, 10:36

Well I really don't know, only thing that I did was make it show progress when using freearc, since there were 3 descriptors instead of 2, I just combined them somehow, and that's it.
Plus it gets updates almost everywhere or whenever there is a bug that was detected.
http://nishi.dreamhosters.com/u/rawfilt_v1l.rar
Source: http://encode.ru/threads/1399-reflat...mpressor/page4
This came today, just replace reflate.exe with new one, it will probably work with old one.

felice2011 · #18 30-09-2016, 10:45

OK thanks

Blade2239 · #19 02-10-2016, 04:01

Can anybody tell me which relate is perfect to use...
Fast
Great compression
And most reliable...

vinay sawan · #20 04-10-2016, 01:32

how it works with inno setup decompression

Razor12911 · #21 08-10-2016, 02:43

CLS updated

Changes

-Updated for v1l
-Source included

Razor12911 · #22 08-10-2016, 02:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade2239

Can anybody tell me which relate is perfect to use...
Fast
Great compression
And most reliable...

This is the one to use, very reliable, not sure about speed though. Great compression... nah, what you're looking for is great precompression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinay sawan

how it works with inno setup decompression

simple straight forward, just add cls and exe in inno, done.

zouzouni · #23 11-10-2016, 14:51

First of all I shall thk you Razor for this awesome work and amazing tools you share with us!

Testing report rawfilt v1l:

I could recompress 2x1.8Gb game files using reflate (v1l)+srep+exe2+delta+lzma... that was pretty fast (30 min)

I could also decompress it ok in asc and it is strangely very fast ...3.6 Gb install in less than 2 min ....!!!! burst speed 200Mb/s and average 30Mb/s! ...very impressive!

backsides/limits:

I could compress one 2.5Gb game file ok but decompression stops at 40% helper for setup still runs for a while and stops as well...no error but does nothing, just stops install

is there any size limitation "per file" being processed? it seems after some testing, that it can compress files bigger than 2Gb but it doesn't decompress them...

thus, I tried to recompress 6 Gb (4x1.5Gb files) and comp went ok but once again decomp/install stops randomly at either 14/15% ...

Any repack test ouptut under 4 Gb, with files smaller than 2Gb installs ok with asc setup,
other than that it just fails...

Reports don't often talk about big files testing... hope it will help other repackers!

AHMED SAMI · #24 11-10-2016, 18:54

Thank You Pro

felice2011 · #25 15-10-2016, 05:55

How To Benchmark I took the ReflateMT version with a 122MB input.

Code:

-↓- [ CMD Bench.Test.Info v0.0.6c ] -↓- Compressed Archive Completed At -↓- 15/10/2016 09:51:24
=============================================================================================================================================
 ○ [ ALGORITHM ] ○ [ INPUT SIZE ] ○ [ OUTPUT SIZE ] ○ [ RATIO.% ] ○ [ ARCHIVED FILES ] ○ [ COMP.TIME ] ○ [ SYNTAX - OPTIONS - ARGUMENTS ] ○

   Arc+reflateMT         122,1°MB          240,4°MB      196,89 %              1°Files    00:00:59:925   a -ma9 -ds -lc1024 -ld1024 -ep1 -di -i2 -ed -r -s; -w"temp" -mreflate 
=============================================================================================================================================

Here I've tested both versions "l & k" with CLS support ...

Code:

-↓- [ CMD Bench.Test.Info v0.0.6c ] -↓- Compressed Archive Completed At -↓- 15/10/2016 11:24:31
=============================================================================================================================================
 ○ [ ALGORITHM ] ○ [ INPUT SIZE ] ○ [ OUTPUT SIZE ] ○ [ RATIO.% ] ○ [ ARCHIVED FILES ] ○ [ COMP.TIME ] ○ [ SYNTAX - OPTIONS - ARGUMENTS ] ○

 Arc+Refl1_K_CLS         122,1°MB          237,5°MB      194,51 %              1°Files    00:01:16:877   a -ma9 -ds -lc1024 -ld1024 -ep1 -di -i2 -ed -r -s; -w"temp" -mreflate 
=============================================================================================================================================

-↓- [ CMD Bench.Test.Info v0.0.6c ] -↓- Compressed Archive Completed At -↓- 15/10/2016 11:29:48
=============================================================================================================================================
 ○ [ ALGORITHM ] ○ [ INPUT SIZE ] ○ [ OUTPUT SIZE ] ○ [ RATIO.% ] ○ [ ARCHIVED FILES ] ○ [ COMP.TIME ] ○ [ SYNTAX - OPTIONS - ARGUMENTS ] ○

 Arc+Refl1_L_CLS         122,1°MB          237,5°MB      194,51 %              1°Files    00:01:16:876   a -ma9 -ds -lc1024 -ld1024 -ep1 -di -i2 -ed -r -s; -w"temp" -mreflate 
=============================================================================================================================================

Between the two versions reflate with CLS "l & k" to understand, there is no substantial difference, a difference between the reflate CLS version and the version ReflateMT, in favor of the latter in terms of speed, and with a higher threshold of reflate.
The reflate version CLS will be continuously updated, hopefully soon in new improvements.

Razor12911 · #26 15-10-2016, 07:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by felice2011

How To Benchmark I took the ReflateMT version with a 122MB input.

Code:

-↓- [ CMD Bench.Test.Info v0.0.6c ] -↓- Compressed Archive Completed At -↓- 15/10/2016 09:51:24
=============================================================================================================================================
 ○ [ ALGORITHM ] ○ [ INPUT SIZE ] ○ [ OUTPUT SIZE ] ○ [ RATIO.% ] ○ [ ARCHIVED FILES ] ○ [ COMP.TIME ] ○ [ SYNTAX - OPTIONS - ARGUMENTS ] ○

   Arc+reflateMT         122,1°MB          240,4°MB      196,89 %              1°Files    00:00:59:925   a -ma9 -ds -lc1024 -ld1024 -ep1 -di -i2 -ed -r -s; -w"temp" -mreflate 
=============================================================================================================================================

Here I've tested both versions "l & k" with CLS support ...

Code:

-↓- [ CMD Bench.Test.Info v0.0.6c ] -↓- Compressed Archive Completed At -↓- 15/10/2016 11:24:31
=============================================================================================================================================
 ○ [ ALGORITHM ] ○ [ INPUT SIZE ] ○ [ OUTPUT SIZE ] ○ [ RATIO.% ] ○ [ ARCHIVED FILES ] ○ [ COMP.TIME ] ○ [ SYNTAX - OPTIONS - ARGUMENTS ] ○

 Arc+Refl1_K_CLS         122,1°MB          237,5°MB      194,51 %              1°Files    00:01:16:877   a -ma9 -ds -lc1024 -ld1024 -ep1 -di -i2 -ed -r -s; -w"temp" -mreflate 
=============================================================================================================================================

-↓- [ CMD Bench.Test.Info v0.0.6c ] -↓- Compressed Archive Completed At -↓- 15/10/2016 11:29:48
=============================================================================================================================================
 ○ [ ALGORITHM ] ○ [ INPUT SIZE ] ○ [ OUTPUT SIZE ] ○ [ RATIO.% ] ○ [ ARCHIVED FILES ] ○ [ COMP.TIME ] ○ [ SYNTAX - OPTIONS - ARGUMENTS ] ○

 Arc+Refl1_L_CLS         122,1°MB          237,5°MB      194,51 %              1°Files    00:01:16:876   a -ma9 -ds -lc1024 -ld1024 -ep1 -di -i2 -ed -r -s; -w"temp" -mreflate 
=============================================================================================================================================

Between the two versions reflate with CLS "l & k" to understand, there is no substantial difference, a difference between the reflate CLS version and the version ReflateMT, in favor of the latter in terms of speed, and with a higher threshold of reflate.
The reflate version CLS will be continuously updated, hopefully soon in new improvements.

You're on fire with benchmarks, wanna bench something?

Blade2239 · #27 15-10-2016, 21:05

This is the one to use, very reliable, not sure about speed though. Great compression... nah, what you're looking for is great precompression.
[QUOTE]
Yeah forgot to type pre
But the speed is not good. Is there any way to decompress after precompressed file with 50MB/s or more..... Brewster last time I used reflate it took allott of time

Razor12911 · #28 15-10-2016, 23:37

50mb/s? be realistic.
Take a certain input, compress it using these settings and tell me what speed you're getting.
If the input has a lot of streams or 99% of it is covered by deflate streams, that's roughtly the speed you're going to get.

multi threading is the only way for more speed.

Blade2239 · #29 19-10-2016, 10:32

Ok I tried it
On hitman silent assassin's
Game size 497 mb
Used this reflate it makes this to 1.23 gb
But while compressing it with 7zip ultra, winrar with maximum, compression ratio is 90℅ why??
Then why I use this...
I tried gozarck reflate it recompress it to 1.23 gb and compressed it to 185 mb no error........

2. While decompression it starts quickly to 14 or 15℅ and stuck. Again try to decompress it extracts it. But I tried to decompress again but it stucks again same like first time.....

My arc ini
[External compressor:reflate]
header = 0
packcmd = reflate -process $$arcdatafile$$.tmp $$arcpackedfile$$.tmp
unpackcmd = reflate -restore - - <stdin> <stdout>

Packing batch
del /q data.arc
arc.exe a -ep1 -r -ed -w.\temp -s4096m -mreflate data.arc "pack\*"
pause

Any body

Blade2239 · #30 29-10-2016, 04:19

Did anyone know why it stucks on asc

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Simple Tutorial of Compressing GTAV	Razor12911	Conversion Tutorials	26	29-01-2019 01:31
Reflate (Compatible with ISDone)	Razor12911	Conversion Tutorials	114	09-03-2017 05:47
Shelwein's REFLATE and &7zip	Gupta	Conversion Tutorials	10	25-09-2016 03:09
Freearc with Reflate test	Razor12911	Conversion Tutorials	37	01-12-2015 10:37
Reflate test	Razor12911	Conversion Tutorials	8	09-09-2015 00:35

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Razor12911 For This Useful Post:
felice2011 (30-09-2016), gozarck (30-09-2016), RamiroCruzo (01-10-2016)

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Razor12911 For This Useful Post:
arkantos7 (09-10-2016), RamiroCruzo (08-10-2016), ~MAK~ (08-10-2016)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Razor12911 For This Useful Post:
Blade2239 (15-10-2016), vinay sawan (12-10-2016)

The Following User Says Thank You to zouzouni For This Useful Post:
Razor12911 (16-10-2016)

The Following User Says Thank You to felice2011 For This Useful Post:
Razor12911 (15-10-2016)

The Following User Says Thank You to Razor12911 For This Useful Post:
Simorq (16-10-2016)