3 ms·
Peazip: https://peazip.github.io/ https://peazip.github.io/ I used to use 7zip, but switched when I discovered that Peazip doesn't extract to a temporary direc
by theandrewbailey 6y ago
Peazip: https://peazip.github.io/ https://peazip.github.io/
I used to use 7zip, but switched when I discovered that Peazip doesn't extract to a temporary directory when extracting (thus, saving extra I/O work). It directly extracts into the target directory.
- WayToDoor 6y agoIs a file move that big of an IO operation?
- vore 6y agoI run into the issue sometimes cross-volume, where the file gets extracted into a temporary directory then has to be copied to the actual destination, into e.g. a network volume or second hard disk.
- theandrewbailey 6y agoBack when I used Winzip/7zip, they didn't move files: they copied files. When you're working with files measured in gigabytes, the speedup is quite noticeable.
- iMerNibor 6y agoIf it's moving it to a different drive/partition it'll have to copy it again Moving many (small) files can also be quite slow
- sumtechguy 6y agodepends on the move operation. 1 file you would not notice it. Thousands it would add up. Across 2 physical drives you may also notice it if the file is big enough.
- jasperry 6y agoIn response to WayToDoor, some archives contain thousands of files, and it's essentially doubling the number of filesystem operations by putting them in a temp directory and then moving. If the temp directory is on a different drive from the destination, then it's recopying all the data. I thought the creation of the files in the temp directory was an unavoidable artifact of how drag-and-drop worked in Windows. If peazip can get around this, I might check it out.
- ta89764894 6y agoAvoiding a temp directories is usually a good thing, unless the temp directory allows you to avoid operations on removable drives. I've noticed on windows with drives marked as "removable" it's almost always faster to copy an archive to the harddrive (non-removable drive) extract it and copy the contents back. I'm assuming this is because of the different or lack of caching available for removable drives. Random read/write is typically a lot slower that sequential read/write so an ideal solution would take into account the relative performance of different drives before with making or not making a temp folder.