Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: BCM v0.04 is here! [!]

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    here's results of a small test on video dvd disc

    2,194,866,176 (2,04gb) - original iso
    2,012,827,345 (1,87gb) - WinRAR 3.80b5 (best, all filters)
    1,943,719,107 (1,80gb) - FreeArc (-mx -ld=1gb)
    1,930,752,565 (1,79gb) - 7-Zip (ultra, 128mb dict)
    1,861,798,652 (1,73gb) - CCMx 1.30c (model 7)
    1,822,283,097 (1,69gb) - BCM 0.004
    1,779,106,230 (1,65gb) - NanoZip 0.06a (-cc -m64m)
    1,756,546,785 (1,63gb) - NanoZip 0.06a (-cc -m1.5g)
    1,756,449,884 (1,63gb) - NanoZip 0.06a (-cc -m2g)

    can't wait to test bcm with adjustable memory usage
    and would be nice to see multithread support in one of next versions

    ps. imho memory parameter should be in MBs

  2. #62
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    4,004
    Thanks
    393
    Thanked 389 Times in 149 Posts
    Code:
    bcm v0.05 by ilia muraviev
    usage: bcm [options] input [output]
    options:
      -b# set block size to # kilobytes (default: -b65536)
      -d  decompress
      -f  force overwrite of output file
    The last thing is an EXE-filter, not decided yet keep new or completely remove any filters. The thing is an old and the best filter is not that good with a large blocks (>64 MB), it may degrade the compression. The filter that works with all block sizes is not that good in practice...

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 64 Times in 38 Posts
    @encode

    if you not sure about the filter
    i think
    you should it remove for the next release
    or give us the possiblity to "switch on/switch off" the filter

    best regards

    waiting for bcm 0.05 ..

  4. #64
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    +1 for megabytes.

  5. #65
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    4,004
    Thanks
    393
    Thanked 389 Times in 149 Posts
    Actually, we should able to set block size in kilobytes due to some reasons:
    1. Ability to compare with older BWT compressors like BZIP2 (bzip2 -9 = bcm -b900)
    2. More precise block size can play a segmentation role. Say, with some binary files, including calgary.tar, setting a smaller block may help in terms of compression

    OK, new BCM v0.05 is done. The last thing is the default block size:

    option, mem. usage

    -b10000, 51 MB
    -b20000, 101 MB
    -b30000, 151 MB
    -b40000, 201 MB
    -b50000, 251 MB
    -b60000, 301 MB
    -b70000, 351 MB
    -b80000, 401 MB
    -b90000, 451 MB
    -b100000, 501 MB


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. BCM v0.10 is here!
    By encode in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 20th June 2010, 21:39
  2. BCM's future
    By encode in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 9th August 2009, 01:00
  3. BCM v0.06,0.07 is here! [!]
    By encode in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 31st May 2009, 16:39
  4. BCM v0.05 is here! [!]
    By encode in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 8th March 2009, 21:12
  5. BCM v0.03 is here! [!]
    By encode in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 14th February 2009, 14:42

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •