20
8
I don't care how long it takes to compress, all I want to achieve is two things:
- The absolute best possible compression ratio
- Compatibility with standard readers, such as Windows and WinZip
So suggestions such as 7-zip won't be of much use, unless 7-zip is also slightly better at the standard ZIP compression (as opposed to using it's very good .7z format).
Ideally I'm looking for:
- A recommendation of a piece of software
- The particular settings for that software that enable the absolute best compression
- Something that's free
Remember, how long it takes to compress is not an issue!
One last thing - some files might be better compressed with different settings, like the "Word size" or "Dictionary size" - is there a tool that can analyse the files and choose the most appropriate compression ratio, or does WinZip, 7-zip etc. already do that?
"much" slower in the previous comment translates to slightly more than 3 times slower. as for space, the slower option gives archive of approx. 99.885 % size compared to the faster (i.e. -mx=9 without -mpass=15) version. So, for 3x more time one can save only 0.115 % of space. So, unless that 0.115% gain is very important, go for -mx=9 instead of -mpass=15. – T.V. – 2019-02-07T00:01:11.357
My 7z error'd on "-m0" but I guess "-mm" does the same with recent versions. I also noticed that, in my case (compressing JPG files), using "-mx9" instead of "-mfb=258 -mpass=15" the result will differ randomly by ±15 bytes on average (with exceptions going in the ±50s) – Mark Jeronimus – 2012-05-01T17:46:13.487
1@Zom-B: You're right, that should have been
-mm=
instead of-m0=
.-m0=
is used on.7z
archives. Also, the 7-Zip manual specifies that-mx=9
for Zip archives is equivalent to-mfb=128 -mpass=10
. What I've noticed is that-mfb=258 -mpass=15
is always much slower than-mx=9
and often doesn't save very much space at all (or occasionally uses a few bytes more). Every once in a while it saves a decent bit of space. – afrazier – 2012-05-01T18:26:24.977