I worry that 7-Zip is going to lose relevance because lack of zstd support. zlib's performance is intolerable for large files and zlib-ng's SIMD implementation only helps here a bit. Which is a shame, because 7-Zip is a pretty amazing container format, especially with its encryption and file splitting capabilities.
I use ZSTD a ton in my programming work where efficiency matters.
But for sharing files with other people, ZIP is still king. Even 7z or RAR is niche. Everyone can open a ZIP file, and they don't really care if the file is a few MBs bigger.
Which reveals that "everyone can open a ZIP file" is a lie. Sure, everyone can open a ZIP file, as long as that file uses only a limited subset of the ZIP format features. Which is why formats which use ZIP as a base (Java JAR files, OpenDocument files, new Office files) standardize such a subset; but for general-purpose ZIP files, there's no such standard.
(I have encountered such ZIP files in the wild; "unzip" can't decompress them, though p7zip worked for these particular ZIP files.)
> On 15 June 2020, Zstandard was implemented in version 6.3.8 of the zip file format with codec number 93, deprecating the previous codec number of 20 as it was implemented in version 6.3.7, released on 1 June.[36][37]
> The `zip` command on Ubuntu is 6.0, which was released in 2009 and does not support zstd. It does support bzip2 though!
You probably mean the "unzip" command, which https://infozip.sourceforge.net/UnZip.html lists as 6.0 being the latest, released on 20 April 2009. Relevant to this discussion, new in that release are support for 64-bit file sizes, bzip2 compression method, and UTF-8 filenames.
The "zip" command is listed at https://infozip.sourceforge.net/Zip.html as 3.0 being the latest, released on 7 July 2008. New in that release are also support for 64-bit file sizes, bzip2 compression method, and UTF-8 filenames.
It would be great if both (or at least unzip) were updated to also support LZMA/XZ/ZSTD as compression methods, but given that there have been no new releases for over fifteen years, I'm not too hopeful.
there are A LOT of zip files using lzma in the wild.
also, how about people learn to use updated software? should newer video compression technologies not be allowed in mkv/mp4.
if you cant open it, well.. then stop using 90ies winzip
No. You can't get people to use updated software. You can't get a number of people to update past windows 7. This has been and will likely remain a persistent issue, and it's sure not one you're going to fix. All it will do is limit your ability to work with people. This isn't a hill on which you should die.
im okay with that. That being said, I have not had a single issue delivering zip files with lzma, and i KNOW that I have gotten MANY from the random sources.
I would also expect people to be able to decode h265 in an mp4 file.
Your proposal seems, to word it bluntly, retarded. You would have mp4 frozen for h264 for ETERNITY, and then invent a new format as replacement? or you would just say "god has bestowed upon the world h264, and it shall be the LAST CODEC EVER!".
get with the program. Things change, you cannot expect to be forwards compatible for ever. Sometimes people have to switch to newer versions of software.
If your customer is stuck in the 90s because his 90s technology works perfectly fine and he has no intention to fix things that are not broken. Then deliver stuff that is compatible with 90s technology. He will be happy, will continue to work with you and you will make money.
If your customer is using the latest technologies and values size efficiency, then use the latest codecs.
I usually default to being conservative, because those who are up to date usually don't have a problem with bigger files, but those who are not are going to have a problem with recent formats. Maybe overly so, but that's my experience with working with big companies with decades long lifecycles.
Your job is not to lecture your customer, unless he asked for it. And if he asked for it, he probably expects better arguments that "update your software, idiot". Your job is to deliver what works for him. Now, of course, it is your right to be picky and leave money on the table, I will be happy to go after you and take it.
not everything is a client<->customer relationship.
Professionally I can definitely support old stuff. It costs extra most often.
Conservative doesnt have to be stuck. I am not recommending we send h266 to everyone now, but h265 is well supported, as is AV1.
lzma support in zip has been widely supported for many years at this point. I am going to be choosing my "sane defaults", and if someone has a problem with that, they can simply do what they need to do to open it, or provide a damn good reason for me to go out of my way.
Installing new software has a real time and hassle cost, and how much time are you actually saving over the long run? It depends on your usage patterns.
the developer is hired by someone that gets to make that decision. Ultimately the customer does. Thats why some people spend extreme resources on legacy crap, because someone has deemed it worth it.
In the middle of San Francisco, with Silicon Valley level incomes, very possible. In the real world I still exchange files with users on rustic ADSL, where every megabyte counts. Many areas out there, in rural Mongolia or in the middle of Africa that's just got access to the internet, are even worse in that regard.
English is evolving as a hieroglyphic language. That floppy disk icon stands a good chance of becoming simply the glyph meaning "save". The UK still uses an icon of an 1840s-era bellows camera for its speed camera road signs. The origin story will be filed away neatly and only its residual meaning will be salient.
More 'useful' one is webp. It has both a lossy and lossless compression algorithm, which have very different strengths and weaknesses. I think nearly every device supports reading both, but so many 'image optimization' libraries and packages don't - often just doing everything as lossy when it could be lossless (icons and what not).
So apparently webp is also 'RIFF" which is the container for WAV files as well it seems. I did not know this. Also webp has its own specialized lossless algorithm. For things like icon art I generally just continue to use PNG. Is there an advantage to using Webp Losslesss?
It's similarly annoying how many websites take the existence of the lossy format as a license to recompress all WebP uploads, or sometimes other filetypes converted to WebP, even when it causes the filesize to increase. It's like we're returning to ye olden days of JPEG artifacts on every screenshot.
I was thinking about this with YouTube as an example. A lot of people complain about the compression on YouTube videos making things look awful, but I bet there's a reasonable number of high-end content creators out there who would run a native(-ish, probably Electron) app on their local system to do a higher-quality encoding to YouTube's specifications before uploading.
In many (most?) cases, it's possible to get better compression and higher quality if you're willing to spend the CPU cycles on it, meaning that YouTube could both reduce their encoding load and increase quality at the same time, and content creators could put out better quality videos that maintain better detail.
It would certainly take longer to upload the multiple multiple versions of everything, and definitely it would take longer to encode, but it would also ease YouTube's burden and produce a better result.
AFIAK you can upload any bitrate to youtube as long as the file is <256GB.
So you could upload a crazy high bitrate file to them for a 20 min video which I suspect would be close to "raw" quality.
I don't know how many corners youtube cut on encoding though.
I suspect most of the problem is people exporting 4k at a 'web' bitrate preset (15mbit/s?), which is actually gonna get murdered on the 2nd encode more than encoding quality on youtubes side?
Tar files also have the miserable limitation of having no index; this means that to extract an individual file requires scanning through the entire archive until you find it, and then continuing to scan through the rest of the archive because a tar file can have the same file path added multiple times.
That makes them useful for transferring an entire set of files that someone will want all or none of, e.g. source code, but terrible for a set of files that someone might want to access arbitrary files from.
I don't know about, had a dicey situation recently where powershell's compress-archive couldn't handle archives >4GB and had to use 7zip. it is more reliable and you can ship 7za.exe or create self-extracting archives (wish those were more of a thing outside of the windows world).
I understand that security has to compromise for the real world, but a self-extracting archive is possibly one of the worst things one could use in terms of security.
You're assuming things because things are already done insecurely. You can authenticate the self-extractor as well as the extracted content. The user gets a nice message "This is a 7zip self-extracting archive sent to you by Bob containing the files below".
As an incident responder, I've seen much more of regular archives being used to social engineer users than self-extracting archives, because self-extracting is not "content executing". it is better for social engineering for users to establish trust in the payload first by having them manually open the archive. if something "weird" like self-extraction happens first, it might feel less trustworthy.
Oh and by the way, things like PyInstaller or electron apps are already self-extracting and self-executing archives. So are JAR files and android APK's.
jar files are zip files, so they don't contain "self extract" code, instead they are associated with already installed extraction code.
however, once extracted, jar files do contain executable code, and that is a security issue. the java model pays attention to security, but if code can do something, it can do something bad. if it can't do something, it's not very useful, is it.
the windows kernel executes a self extracting 7z archive, java.exe extracts and executes .jar files. If the 7z self extractor was .net CLR bytecode it would operate very much the same as .JAR files. to your point though, the primary purpose of JAR files is not to compress and transport other files, they're supposed to be executables only. From a user's perspective, abuse potential is the main difference.
What are you compressing with zstd? I had to do this recently and the "xz" utility still blows it away in terms of compression ratio. In terms of memory and CPU usage, zstd wins by a large margin. But in my case I only really cared about compression ratio
people tend to care about decompression speed - xz can be quite slow decompressing super compressed files whereas zstd decompression speed is largely independent of that.
People also tend to care about how much time they spend on compression for each incremental % of compression performance and zstd tends to be a Pareto frontier for that (at least for open source algorithms)
This makes sense. A lot of end-users have internet speeds that can outpace the decompression speeds of heavily compressed files. Seems like there would be an irrational psychological aspect to it as well.
Unfortunately for the hoster, they either have to eat the cost of the added bandwidth from a larger file or have people complain about slow decompression.
Well the difference is quite a bit more manageable in practice since you’re talking about single digit space difference vs a 2-100x performance in decompression.
I definitely agree, I basically have unlimited time and unlimited CPU for decompressing. Available memory is huge too. The gains from xz were significant enough that I went with it.
I think it depends on what you're compressing. I experimented with my data full of hex text xml files. xz -6 is both faster and smaller than zstd -19 by about 10%. For my data, xz -2 and zstd -17 achieve the same compressed size but xz -2 is 3 times faster than zstd -17. I still use xz for archive because I rarely needs to decompress them.
It's pretty clear zstd blows everything else out of the water by a huge margin. And even though compressing with zstd is slightly slower than xz in this case (by less than 10%), decompression is nearly 8x as fast, and you can probably tweak the compression level to make zstd be both faster and better than xz.
If the email data is mostly text with markup (like HTML/XML), you might want to try bzip3 too.
It's also possible that a large part of your email is actually already-compressed binary data (like PDFs and images) possibly encoded in base-64. In that case it's likely that all tools are pretty good at compressing the text and headers, but can do little to compress the attachments, which would explain why the results you get are so close.
Interesting--thanks for checking! I had good experiences with bzip3 compressing Wikipedia XML dumps, to the point it even outperformed xz, so I thought something similar might happen here. Compression does remain a bit of a black art, where it's hard to predict what works without trying it out.
Overall I'm still slightly biased towards using zstd as a default, in that I believe:
1. zstd will almost always be among fastest formats for decompression, which is obviously nice-to-have everything else being equal.
2. zstd can achieve a very high compression ratio, depending on tuning; rarely will zstd significantly underperform the next best option.
Overall this is a pretty good case for using zstd by default, even if in some cases it's not noticably better than other formats. In your case, xz seems to be just as good.
yup, you should have tried just different -NN, and notice. I had a talk on zstd couple of years back, and one of the points was that it was better than xz across the board.
Use the pigz command for parallel gzip. Mark Adler also has an example floating around somewhere about how to implement basically the same thing using Z_BLOCK.
zip is such a shit standard, hell there are parts of it that are still undocumented and sharing documents between system zip implementations across mac and windows sometimes fails.
7-zip is the de-facto tool on Windows and has been for a long time. It's more than fast and compressed enough for 99% of peoples use cases.
It's not going anywhere anytime soon.
The more likely thing to eat into its relevance is now that Windows has built-in basic support for zipping/unzipping EDIT: other formats*, which relegates 7-zip to more niche uses.
7-zip is the de-facto tool on Windows and has been for a long time.
Agreed. The only thing I think it has been missing is PAR support. I think they should consider incorporating one of the par2cmdline forks and porting that code to Windows as well so that it has recovery options similar to WinRAR. It's not used by everyone but that should deprecate any use cases for WinRAR in my opinion.
As mentioned in another comment, zip support actually goes further back as far as '98, but only Windows 11 added support for handling other formats like RAR/7-Zip/.tar/.tar.gz/.tar.bz2/etc.
That allows it to be a default that 'just works' for most people without installing anything extra.
The vast majority of users don't care about the extra performance or functionality of a tool like 7-zip. They just need a way to open and send files and the Windows built-in tool is 'good enough' for them.
I agree that 7-zip is better, but most users simply do not care.
Windows zip is not in fact good enough. I've run into weird, buggy behavior, hanging on extract, all sorts of nonsense. I can see the argument that a universally-adopted solution is better, but that's different from windows just not working.
I'm not saying I would ever use it. I'm saying that for casual non-power users, it's good enough. They work with it and if it breaks once in a blue moon they don't care. They just want it to open the files they get and give them a way to send files compressed.
That is enough to bite into 7-Zip's share of users.
7-zip, through its .7z format, also supports AES encryption. I'd argue it's probably the easiest way to encrypt individual file archives that you need to access on both Windows and Linux. I have a script I periodically run that makes an encrypted .7z archive of all of my projects, which I then upload for off-site backup. (On-site, I don't bother encrypting.)
Is there something different about the built in zip context menu functionality now than before? I'm pretty sure you could convert something to a zip file since forever ago by right clicking any file.
It's been a long time since I used Windows, but back in the day I used 7-Zip exactly because it could open more or less $anything. That's also why we installed it on many customer computers.
On Linux bsdtar/libarchive gives a similar experience: "tar xf file" works on most things.
7-Zip is like VLC: maybe not the best, but it’s free (speech and beer) and handles almost anything you throw at it. For personal use, I don’t care much about efficient compression either computationally or in terms of storage; I just want “tar, but won’t make a 700 MB blank ISO9660 image take 700 MB”.
Windows 11 has shipped with bsdtar/libarchive for a few years. The gui shell support for archive files was recently changed to use libarchive which has increased the supported archive files which can be opened in the shell.
That's basically me! I really like 7-Zip because it opens most archive formats I have to work with and also the .7z format has pretty good compression for the stuff I want to store longer term.
in fact this is the first time I even hear about it, and I am semi-IT litterate. The prevalence of a compression standard is about how ubiquitous it is. For that one, I would vote "not even on the radar yet".
if by gui u mean the ability to right click a .zip file and unzip it just through the little window that pops up ur totally right. At least that + the unzipping progress bar is what I appreciate 7zip for
That's why 7zip should support it. People care about the convenience of the GUI and we all benefit from better compression being accessible with a nice GUI.
If you're expecting a "mobile first" or similar GUI where most of the screen is dedicated to whitespace, basic features involves 7 or more mouse clicks and for some reason it all gets changed every ~6 months then yes the 7zip GUI is terrible.
Desktop software usability peaked sometime in the late 90s, early 2000s. There's a reason why 7zip still looks like ~2004
You could have taken the 10 seconds to type in "PeaZip GUI" and seen that it is not a mobile interface and it is indeed much nicer than the 7-Zip interface.
Instead you chose to make a useless snarky comment. Be better.
PeaZip is popular? It seems a lot less tested than 7zip; Last time I tried to use it, it failed to unpack an archive because the password had a quote character or something like that. Never had such crazy issues in 7zip myself.
I use this one too. This is the best one out of all the alternative 7zip with zstd. UI is same, has all the options and faster than those for zstd in my comparisons.
Tried it, compression is worse compared to 7-Zip-zstd by mcmilk for zstd, for same speed. The removal of text from toolbar icons is enough for me to never use it again. 7zip can change file associations directly with it and very easy. Feels like NanaZip is worse in QoL than 7zip.
Being a bit faster or efficient won't make most people switch. 7z offers great UX (convenient GUI and support for many formats) that keeps people around.
Since Windows 11 incorporated libarchive back in October 2023 there is less reason to use 7-zip on windows. I would be surprised if any of my friends even know what a zip file is let alone zstd.
If you ever try to extract an archive file of several gigabyte size with hundreds of thousands of files (I know, it's rare), the built-in one is as slow as a turtle compared to 7z.
Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. WinZip is a slow and bloated abomination, especially compared to 7-Zip. The right-click menu context entry for 7-Zip is very convenient and runs lightning fast. WinZip can't compete at all.
There are lots of 7zip alike with zstd support (it's a plugin effectively). On [corporate] Windows NanaZip would be my choice as it's available in Windows store.
A lot of synchronization primitives in the NT kernel are based on a register width bit mask of a CPU set, so each collection of 64 hardware threads on 64 bit systems kind of runs in its own instance of the scheduler. It's also unfortunately part of the driver ABI since these ops were implemented as macros and inline functions.
Because of that, transitioning a software thread to another processor group is a manual process that has to be managed by user space.
The NT kernel dates back to 1993. Computers didn’t exceed 64 logical processors per system until around 2014. And doing it back then required a ridiculously expensive server with 8 Intel CPUs.
The technical decision Microsoft made initially worked well for over two decades. I don’t think it was lame; I believe it was a solid choice back then.
Linux had many similar restrictions in its lifetime; it just has a different compatibility philosophy that allowed it to break all the relevant ABIs. Most recently, dual-socket 192-core Ampere systems were running into a hardcoded 256-processor limit. https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/yes-you-can-...
Tom's hardware is mistaken in their reporting. That's raisng the limit without using CPUMASK_OFFSTACK. The kernel already supported thousands of cores with CPUMASK_OFFSTACK and has at least since the 2.6.x days.
> Computers didn’t exceed 64 logical processors per system until around 2014.
Server systems were available with that since at least the late 90s. Server systems with >10 CPUs were already available in the mid-90s. By the early-to-mid 90s it was pretty obvious that was only going to increase and that the 64-CPU limit was going to be a problem down the line.
That said, development of NT started in 1988, and it may have been less obvious then.
"Server systems" but not server systems that Microsoft targeted. NT4 Enterprise Server (1996) only supported up to 8 sockets (some companies wrote their own HAL to exceed that limit). And 8 sockets was 8 threads with no NUMA back then, not something that would have been an issue for the purposes of this discussion.
That was what stuck, but supporting the big servers was also part of their multifaceted strategy. That's why the alpha, itanium, powerpc, and mips ports existed.
> And x86 arguably didn't ship >64 hardware thread systems until then because NT didn't support it.
If that were the case the above system wouldn't have needed 8 sockets. With NUMA systems the app needs to be scheduling group aware anyways. The difference here really appears when you have a single socket with more than 64 hardware threads, which took until ~2019 for x86.
The same reasons it would on macOS or Windows, most people just aren't writing software which needs to worry about having a single process running many hundreds of threads across 8 sockets efficiently so it's fine to not be NUMA aware. It's not that it won't run at all, a multi-socket system is still a superset of a single socket system, just it will run much more poorly than it could in such scenarios.
The only difference with Windows is a single processor group cannot contain more than 64 cores. This is why 7-Zip needed to add processor group support - even though a 96 core Threadripper represents as a single NUMA node the software has to request assignment to 2x48 processor groups, the same as if it were 2 NUMA nodes with 48 cores each, because of the KAFFINITY limitation.
Examples of common NUMA aware Linux applications are SAP Hana and Oracle RDBMS. On multi-socket systems it can often be helpful to run postgres and such via https://linux.die.net/man/8/numactl too, even if you're not quite the scale you need full NUMA awareness in the DB. You generally also want hypervisors to pass the correct NUMA topologies to guests as well. E.g. if you have a KVM guest with 80 cores assigned on a 2x64 Epyc host setup then you want to set the guest topology to something like 2x40 cores or it'll run like crap because the guest is sees it can schedule one way but reality is another.
There were single image systems with hundreds of cores in the late 90s and thousands of cores in the early 2000s.
I absolutely stand by the fact that Intel and AMD didn't pursue high core count systems until that point because they were so focused on single core perf, in part because Windows didn't support high core counts. The end of Denmark scing forced their hand and Microsoft's processor group hack.
Do you have anything to say regarding NUMA for the 90s core counts though? As I said, it's not enough that there were a lot of cores - they have to be monolithically scheduled to matter. The largest UMA design I can recall was the CS6400 in 1993, to go past that they started to introduce NUMA designs.
Windows didn't handle numa either until they created processor groups, and there's all sorts reasons why you'd want to run a process (particularly on Windows which encourages single process high thread count software archs) that spans numa nodes. It's really not that big if a deal for a lot of workloads where your working set fits just fine in cache, or you take the high hatdware thread count approach of just having enough contexts in flight that you can absorb the extra memory latency in exchange for higher throughput.
6.1 (2009) - Processor Groups to have the KAFFINITY limit be per NUMA node
Xeon E7-8800 (2011) - An x86 system exceeding 64 total cores is possible (10x8 -> requires Processor Groups)
Epyc 9004 (2022) - KAFFINITY has created an artificial limit for x86 where you need to split groups more granular than NUMA
If x86 had actually hit a KAFFINITY wall then the E7-8800 even would have occured years before processor groups because >8 core CPUs are desirable regardless if you can stick 8 in a single box.
The story is really a bit reverse from the claim: NT in the 90s supported architectures which could scale past the KAFFINITY limit. NT in the late 2000s supported scaling x86 but it wouldn't have mattered until the 2010s. Ultimately KAFFINITY wasn't an annoyance until the 2020s.
> other systems had been exceeding 64 cores since the late 90s.
Windows didn’t run on these other systems, why would Microsoft care about them?
> x86 arguably didn't ship >64 hardware thread systems until then because NT didn't support it
For publicly accessible web servers, Linux overtook Windows around 2005. Then in 2006 Amazon launched EC2, and the industry started that massive transition to the clouds. Linux is better suited for clouds, due to OS licensing and other reasons.
> Windows didn’t run on these other systems, why would Microsoft care about them?
Because it was clear that high core count, single system image platforms were a viable server architecture, and NT was vying for the entire server space, intending to kill off the vendor Unices.
. For publicly accessible web servers, Linux overtook Windows around 2005. Then in 2006 Amazon launched EC2, and the industry started that massive transition to the clouds. Linux is better suited for clouds, due to OS licensing and other reasons.
Linux wasn't the only OS. Solaris and AIX were NT's competitors too back then, and supported higher core counts.
That doesn't mean every platform was or would have been profitable. x86 became 'good enough' to run your mail or web server, it doomed other architectures (and commonly OSes) as the cost of x86 was vastly lower than the Alphas, PowerPCs, and so on.
The linked Processor Group documentation also says:
> Applications that do not call any functions that use processor affinity masks or processor numbers will operate correctly on all systems, regardless of the number of processors.
I suspect the limitation 7zip encountered was in how it checked how many logical processors a system has, to determine how many threads to spawn. GetActiveProcessorCount can tell you how many logical processors are on the system if you pass ALL_PROCESSOR_GROUPS, but that API was only added in Windows 7 (that said, that was more than 15 years ago, they probably could've found a moment to add and test a conditional call to it).
It isn't just detecting the extra logical processors, you have to do work to utilise them. From the linked text:
"If there are more than one processor group in Windows (on systems with more than
64 cpu threads), 7-Zip distributes running CPU threads across different processor groups."
The OS does not do that for you under Windows. Other OSs handle that many cores differently.
> more than 15 years ago, they probably could've found a moment to add and test a conditional call to it
I suspect it hasn't been an issue much at all until recently. Any single block of data worth spinning up that many threads for compressing is going to be very large, you don't want to split something into too small chunks for compression or you lose some benefit of the dynamic compression dictionary (sharing that between threads would add a lot of inter-thread coordination work, killing any performance gain even if the threads are running local enough on the CPU to share cache). Compression is not an inherently parallelizable task, at least not “embarrassingly” so like some processes.
Even when you do have something to compress that would benefit for more than 64 separate tasks in theory, unless it is all in RAM (or on an incredibly quick & low latency drive/array) the process is likely to be IO starved long before it is compute starved, when you have that much compute resource to hand.
Recent improvements in storage options & CPUs (and the bandwidth between them) have presumably pushed the occurrences of this being worthwhile (outside of artificial tests) from “practically zero” to “near zero, but it happens”, hence the change has been made.
Note that two or more 7-zip instances working on different data could always use more than 64 threads between them, if enough cores to make that useful were available.
Are you sure that if you don't attempt to set any affinities, Windows won't schedule 64+ threads over other processor groups? I don't have any system handy that'll produce more than 64 logical processors to test this, but I'd be surprised if Windows' scheduler won't distribute a process's threads over other processor groups if you exceed the number of cores in the group it launches into.
The referenced text suggests applications will "work", but that isn't really explicit.
They're either wrong or thinking about windows 7/8/10. That page is quite clear.
> starting with Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022 the OS has changed to make processes and their threads span all processors in the system, across all processor groups, by default.
> Each process is assigned a primary group at creation, and by default all of its threads' primary group is the same. Each thread's ideal processor is in the thread's primary group, so threads will preferentially be scheduled to processors on their primary group, but they are able to be scheduled to processors on any other group.
I mean, it seems it's quite clear that a single process and all of its threads will just be assigned to a single processor group, and it'll take manual work for that process to use more than 64 cores.
The difference is just that processes will be assigned a processor group more or less randomly by default, so they'll be balanced on the process level, but not the thread level. Not super helpful for a lot of software systems on windows which had historically preferred threads to processes for concurrency.
It absolutely will. Your process is only assigned a single processor group at process creation time. The only difference now is that it's by default assigned a random processor group rather than inheriting the parent's. For processes that don't require >64 cores, this means better utilization at the system level. However you're still assigned <=64 cores by default per process by default.
That's literally why 7-zip is announcing completion of that manual work.
The 7zip code needed to change because it was counting cores by looking at affinity masks, and that limits it to 64.
It also needed to change if you want optimal scheduling, and it needed to change if you want it to be able to use all those cores on something that isn't windows 11.
But for just the basic functionality of using all the cores: >Starting with Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022, on a system with more than 64 processors, process and thread affinities span all processors in the system, across all processor groups, by default
That's documentation for a single process messing with its affinity. They're not writing that because they wrote a function to put different processes on different groups. A single process will span groups by default.
That depends on what format you're using. Zip compresses every file separately. Bzip and zstd have pretty small maximum block sizes and gzip doesn't gain much from large blocks anyway. And even when you're making large blocks, you can dump a lot of parallelism into searching for repeat data.
Every operating system, that's relevant in 2025, needs that concept. It is called NUMA. At some point you cannot model the system ignoring the memory affinity / closeness to the cores.
Modern AMD CPUs are literally consist of core groups on chiplets. It is better for an OS to make decisions / expose APIs for cores that are physically so far away from each other that moving data back-and-forth over the RAM, system bus or interconnect has significant time penalties.
No, the GUI. 7-zip integrates well with the shell: select a group of files, right click -> make zip file, and so on. Or right-click a zip file and select extract. If you're accustomed to Linux you might not know what they're talking about.
TortoiseGit (and TortoiseSVN) are similarly convenient. Right click a folder with an SVN repo checked out, and select "SVN update". Right-click an empty space, and select "SVN checkout". SVN was the main distribution method for some modding communities before things like Steam Workshop and Github, specifically because TortoiseSVN made it so convenient. Checkout into your addons folder, and periodically update. What could be simpler?
How does that work? You cannot write to disk before you know the compressed size. Or if you do you can use a data descriptor but you cannot write concurrently.
I guess they buffer the compressed stream to RAM before writing to zip. If they want to keep their zip stable (always the same output given the same input), they also need to keep it a bit longer than necessary in RAM.
Maybe Windows allows a file to be constructed quickly from parts that are not necessarily multiples of the blocksize. Maybe they have a fast api for writing multiple files and then turning it into a single file. POSIX doesn't allow that, but it is quite old.
I've used pbzip2 which takes the same parallel blocked compression approach 7zip seems to be taking (using AI's analysis of the changes). Theoretically the compression is less efficient, but i haven't noticed a difference in practice.
Wow, a program that doesn't matter anymore has been very very minimally enhanced on a platform that doesn't matter anymore, benefitting the 7 users that have more than 64 real cores with Windoes and are regularly compressing archives so large that it doesn't drastically reduce the compression ratio to split it into more thsn 64 sections.
Posting this link to hn has consumed more human potential than the thing it is describing will save up to the end of time.
The rest of this comment has, though gratuitously snarky, a point, but I don’t think claiming that 7zip is irrelevant as an independent statement is even remotely coherent.
Betamax, as released, was not better than VHS. It also had very low recording times of like 1 hour per tape.
Betamax was updated repeatedly, as was VHS. At no point was contemporaneous consumer Betamax able to match VHS for quality with the same recording times.
This is a persistent myth propagated primarily by people who have probably never seen Betamax in use.
Often people compare a professional version of betamax to consumer versions of VHS as well.
I worry that 7-Zip is going to lose relevance because lack of zstd support. zlib's performance is intolerable for large files and zlib-ng's SIMD implementation only helps here a bit. Which is a shame, because 7-Zip is a pretty amazing container format, especially with its encryption and file splitting capabilities.
I use ZSTD a ton in my programming work where efficiency matters.
But for sharing files with other people, ZIP is still king. Even 7z or RAR is niche. Everyone can open a ZIP file, and they don't really care if the file is a few MBs bigger.
> Everyone can open a ZIP file, and they don't really care if the file is a few MBs bigger.
You can use ZSTD with ZIP files too! It's compression method 93 (see https://pkware.cachefly.net/webdocs/casestudies/APPNOTE.TXT which is the official ZIP file specification).
Which reveals that "everyone can open a ZIP file" is a lie. Sure, everyone can open a ZIP file, as long as that file uses only a limited subset of the ZIP format features. Which is why formats which use ZIP as a base (Java JAR files, OpenDocument files, new Office files) standardize such a subset; but for general-purpose ZIP files, there's no such standard.
(I have encountered such ZIP files in the wild; "unzip" can't decompress them, though p7zip worked for these particular ZIP files.)
> You can use ZSTD with ZIP files too!
Support for which was added in 2020:
> On 15 June 2020, Zstandard was implemented in version 6.3.8 of the zip file format with codec number 93, deprecating the previous codec number of 20 as it was implemented in version 6.3.7, released on 1 June.[36][37]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zstd#Usage
So I'm not sure how widely deployed it would be.
Most linux distributions have zip support with zstd.
The `zip` command on Ubuntu is 6.0, which was released in 2009 and does not support zstd. It does support bzip2 though!
> The `zip` command on Ubuntu is 6.0, which was released in 2009 and does not support zstd. It does support bzip2 though!
You probably mean the "unzip" command, which https://infozip.sourceforge.net/UnZip.html lists as 6.0 being the latest, released on 20 April 2009. Relevant to this discussion, new in that release are support for 64-bit file sizes, bzip2 compression method, and UTF-8 filenames.
The "zip" command is listed at https://infozip.sourceforge.net/Zip.html as 3.0 being the latest, released on 7 July 2008. New in that release are also support for 64-bit file sizes, bzip2 compression method, and UTF-8 filenames.
It would be great if both (or at least unzip) were updated to also support LZMA/XZ/ZSTD as compression methods, but given that there have been no new releases for over fifteen years, I'm not too hopeful.
i meant the "zip support" (as in zlib) with zstd command.
Well, only a lunatic would use ZIP with anything but DEFLATE/DEFLATE64
there are A LOT of zip files using lzma in the wild. also, how about people learn to use updated software? should newer video compression technologies not be allowed in mkv/mp4.
if you cant open it, well.. then stop using 90ies winzip
No. You can't get people to use updated software. You can't get a number of people to update past windows 7. This has been and will likely remain a persistent issue, and it's sure not one you're going to fix. All it will do is limit your ability to work with people. This isn't a hill on which you should die.
if they want to open certain files, they will update
No, they're just not going to work with you.
Yep. Half the world's finances still spin on CSVs and FTP (no, not SFTP, FTP) If your customers request a format, that's the format you're using.
And if they don't request a format (or if you ask, and the response is "what's a format"), you need to use one that's 99.99% supported.
im okay with that. That being said, I have not had a single issue delivering zip files with lzma, and i KNOW that I have gotten MANY from the random sources.
I would also expect people to be able to decode h265 in an mp4 file.
Your proposal seems, to word it bluntly, retarded. You would have mp4 frozen for h264 for ETERNITY, and then invent a new format as replacement? or you would just say "god has bestowed upon the world h264, and it shall be the LAST CODEC EVER!".
get with the program. Things change, you cannot expect to be forwards compatible for ever. Sometimes people have to switch to newer versions of software.
It depends on your priorities.
If your customer is stuck in the 90s because his 90s technology works perfectly fine and he has no intention to fix things that are not broken. Then deliver stuff that is compatible with 90s technology. He will be happy, will continue to work with you and you will make money.
If your customer is using the latest technologies and values size efficiency, then use the latest codecs.
I usually default to being conservative, because those who are up to date usually don't have a problem with bigger files, but those who are not are going to have a problem with recent formats. Maybe overly so, but that's my experience with working with big companies with decades long lifecycles.
Your job is not to lecture your customer, unless he asked for it. And if he asked for it, he probably expects better arguments that "update your software, idiot". Your job is to deliver what works for him. Now, of course, it is your right to be picky and leave money on the table, I will be happy to go after you and take it.
not everything is a client<->customer relationship.
Professionally I can definitely support old stuff. It costs extra most often.
Conservative doesnt have to be stuck. I am not recommending we send h266 to everyone now, but h265 is well supported, as is AV1.
lzma support in zip has been widely supported for many years at this point. I am going to be choosing my "sane defaults", and if someone has a problem with that, they can simply do what they need to do to open it, or provide a damn good reason for me to go out of my way.
>how about people learn to use updated software?
How about software developers learn to keep software working on old OSes and old hardware?
What stops you from running updated zip/unzip on an old OS or on old hardware?
Nothing, but what stops you from using DEFLATE64?
Installing new software has a real time and hassle cost, and how much time are you actually saving over the long run? It depends on your usage patterns.
Supporting old APIs and additional legacy ways of doing things has a real cost in maintenance.
So does not supporting them, but the developer gets to externalize those.
the developer is hired by someone that gets to make that decision. Ultimately the customer does. Thats why some people spend extreme resources on legacy crap, because someone has deemed it worth it.
what stops you from installing win95 and winzip?
what software doesnt support OSs that are in active SECURITY support?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/windows-95-98-and-ot...
"Retro-computing fans can download the final updates released for '90s-era OSes."
Right, and when were these "final updates" made? are you suggesting 95, 98 still sees ACTIVE security support?
mkv or mp4 with h264 and aac is good enough. mp3 is good enough. jpeg is good enough. zip with deflate is also good enough.
"Good enough" is not good enough.
I started using winrar because winzip wouldnt fit in a floppy disk. so even in the 90s zip wasnt good enough
In the middle of San Francisco, with Silicon Valley level incomes, very possible. In the real world I still exchange files with users on rustic ADSL, where every megabyte counts. Many areas out there, in rural Mongolia or in the middle of Africa that's just got access to the internet, are even worse in that regard.
h264 is not good enough for many things
> new Office files
I know what you mean, I’m not being pedantic, but I just realized it’s been 19 years. I wonder when we’ll start calling them “Office files”.
> I wonder when we’ll start calling them “Office files”.
Probably around the same time the save icon becomes something other than a 3 1/2" floppy disk.
English is evolving as a hieroglyphic language. That floppy disk icon stands a good chance of becoming simply the glyph meaning "save". The UK still uses an icon of an 1840s-era bellows camera for its speed camera road signs. The origin story will be filed away neatly and only its residual meaning will be salient.
Nowadays I’ve noticed fewer applications have a save icon at all, relying instead on auto-save.
And some only save to the cloud, whence a cloud icon with an arrow. (Not that I like that, but... that's what we get)
You can and I've done it… but you can't expect anything to be able to decompress it unless you wrote it yourself.
Same thing with "WAV" files. There's at least 3 popular formats for the audio data out there.
More 'useful' one is webp. It has both a lossy and lossless compression algorithm, which have very different strengths and weaknesses. I think nearly every device supports reading both, but so many 'image optimization' libraries and packages don't - often just doing everything as lossy when it could be lossless (icons and what not).
So apparently webp is also 'RIFF" which is the container for WAV files as well it seems. I did not know this. Also webp has its own specialized lossless algorithm. For things like icon art I generally just continue to use PNG. Is there an advantage to using Webp Losslesss?
It's similarly annoying how many websites take the existence of the lossy format as a license to recompress all WebP uploads, or sometimes other filetypes converted to WebP, even when it causes the filesize to increase. It's like we're returning to ye olden days of JPEG artifacts on every screenshot.
I was thinking about this with YouTube as an example. A lot of people complain about the compression on YouTube videos making things look awful, but I bet there's a reasonable number of high-end content creators out there who would run a native(-ish, probably Electron) app on their local system to do a higher-quality encoding to YouTube's specifications before uploading.
In many (most?) cases, it's possible to get better compression and higher quality if you're willing to spend the CPU cycles on it, meaning that YouTube could both reduce their encoding load and increase quality at the same time, and content creators could put out better quality videos that maintain better detail.
It would certainly take longer to upload the multiple multiple versions of everything, and definitely it would take longer to encode, but it would also ease YouTube's burden and produce a better result.
Ah well, a guy can dream.
AFIAK you can upload any bitrate to youtube as long as the file is <256GB.
So you could upload a crazy high bitrate file to them for a 20 min video which I suspect would be close to "raw" quality.
I don't know how many corners youtube cut on encoding though.
I suspect most of the problem is people exporting 4k at a 'web' bitrate preset (15mbit/s?), which is actually gonna get murdered on the 2nd encode more than encoding quality on youtubes side?
> Copyright (c) 1989 - 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022
Mostly it seems nutty that, after all these years, they’re still updating the zip spec instead of moving on to a newer format.
The English language is awful, and we keep updating it instead of moving to a newer language.
Some things are used for interoperability, and switching to a newer incompatible thing loses all of its value.
.7z and .tar.* have existed for at least 20 years now, but you are unlikely to see a wild 7z file and .tar.* is isolated to the UNIX space
Tar files also have the miserable limitation of having no index; this means that to extract an individual file requires scanning through the entire archive until you find it, and then continuing to scan through the rest of the archive because a tar file can have the same file path added multiple times.
That makes them useful for transferring an entire set of files that someone will want all or none of, e.g. source code, but terrible for a set of files that someone might want to access arbitrary files from.
Sure, but that's not really a reason to futilely try to spooge oddball algorithms that nobody is going to adopt into the .zip standard.
So thats why rarely the customer cant open one of the zip files we send over.
I don't know about, had a dicey situation recently where powershell's compress-archive couldn't handle archives >4GB and had to use 7zip. it is more reliable and you can ship 7za.exe or create self-extracting archives (wish those were more of a thing outside of the windows world).
In the realm of POSIX.2 and UNIX relatives, the closest analog would be a "shar" archive.
They are not regarded kindly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shar_(file_format)
I understand that security has to compromise for the real world, but a self-extracting archive is possibly one of the worst things one could use in terms of security.
why? and why does it have to be a compromise?
You're assuming things because things are already done insecurely. You can authenticate the self-extractor as well as the extracted content. The user gets a nice message "This is a 7zip self-extracting archive sent to you by Bob containing the files below".
As an incident responder, I've seen much more of regular archives being used to social engineer users than self-extracting archives, because self-extracting is not "content executing". it is better for social engineering for users to establish trust in the payload first by having them manually open the archive. if something "weird" like self-extraction happens first, it might feel less trustworthy.
Oh and by the way, things like PyInstaller or electron apps are already self-extracting and self-executing archives. So are JAR files and android APK's.
jar files are zip files, so they don't contain "self extract" code, instead they are associated with already installed extraction code.
however, once extracted, jar files do contain executable code, and that is a security issue. the java model pays attention to security, but if code can do something, it can do something bad. if it can't do something, it's not very useful, is it.
the windows kernel executes a self extracting 7z archive, java.exe extracts and executes .jar files. If the 7z self extractor was .net CLR bytecode it would operate very much the same as .JAR files. to your point though, the primary purpose of JAR files is not to compress and transport other files, they're supposed to be executables only. From a user's perspective, abuse potential is the main difference.
What are you compressing with zstd? I had to do this recently and the "xz" utility still blows it away in terms of compression ratio. In terms of memory and CPU usage, zstd wins by a large margin. But in my case I only really cared about compression ratio
people tend to care about decompression speed - xz can be quite slow decompressing super compressed files whereas zstd decompression speed is largely independent of that.
People also tend to care about how much time they spend on compression for each incremental % of compression performance and zstd tends to be a Pareto frontier for that (at least for open source algorithms)
This makes sense. A lot of end-users have internet speeds that can outpace the decompression speeds of heavily compressed files. Seems like there would be an irrational psychological aspect to it as well.
Unfortunately for the hoster, they either have to eat the cost of the added bandwidth from a larger file or have people complain about slow decompression.
Well the difference is quite a bit more manageable in practice since you’re talking about single digit space difference vs a 2-100x performance in decompression.
I definitely agree, I basically have unlimited time and unlimited CPU for decompressing. Available memory is huge too. The gains from xz were significant enough that I went with it.
I usually see zstd on max settings outperform xz on speed and very slightly on compression (though that's a tiny difference).
in my experience using zstd --long --ultra -22 gives marginally better compression ratio than xz -9 while being significantly faster
I think it depends on what you're compressing. I experimented with my data full of hex text xml files. xz -6 is both faster and smaller than zstd -19 by about 10%. For my data, xz -2 and zstd -17 achieve the same compressed size but xz -2 is 3 times faster than zstd -17. I still use xz for archive because I rarely needs to decompress them.
Try combining it with --long
My use cases are usually source code, SQL dumps and log files.
Sometimes xz gave marginally better results, but difference was well below 1%
thanks for the tips. As my data has very low entropy, both can compress down to 3-4% of original size, but xz is a lot faster in compression.
raw size: 9612344 B
zstd --ultra -22 --long=31 => 376181 B (3.91% original, 4.088s compress, 0.013s decompress)
xz -z -9 xml => 353700 B (3.68% original, 0.729s compress, 0.032s decompress)
zstd -17 --long=31 could match the compression time of xz, but the size is bigger (405602 B, 4.22% original)
If you compare only the compressed size (not to the original size), .zst would be about 6-15% larger than .xz
do you have examples where xz 'blows it away', not just zstd -3?
Here are some examples of what I was doing in one case
https://www.hydrogen18.com/blog/apk-the-strangest-format.htm...
I was running "zstd --ultra --threads=0" which I assumed was asking it for the absolute maximum
I think your mistake was to use --ultra without a compression level.
I redid your experiments with rust-wasm-1.83.0-r0.apk:
It's pretty clear zstd blows everything else out of the water by a huge margin. And even though compressing with zstd is slightly slower than xz in this case (by less than 10%), decompression is nearly 8x as fast, and you can probably tweak the compression level to make zstd be both faster and better than xz.That was an impressive result, so I tried it on a huge email inbox.
(-22 ran out of memory.) So at least by me zstd was identical to xz almost to the byte and the second.It does really vary based on the data set.
If the email data is mostly text with markup (like HTML/XML), you might want to try bzip3 too.
It's also possible that a large part of your email is actually already-compressed binary data (like PDFs and images) possibly encoded in base-64. In that case it's likely that all tools are pretty good at compressing the text and headers, but can do little to compress the attachments, which would explain why the results you get are so close.
Interesting--thanks for checking! I had good experiences with bzip3 compressing Wikipedia XML dumps, to the point it even outperformed xz, so I thought something similar might happen here. Compression does remain a bit of a black art, where it's hard to predict what works without trying it out.
Overall I'm still slightly biased towards using zstd as a default, in that I believe:
Overall this is a pretty good case for using zstd by default, even if in some cases it's not noticably better than other formats. In your case, xz seems to be just as good.I got -22 to run:
Pretty minor difference.I guess I misunderstood the man page for that option then.
yup, you should have tried just different -NN, and notice. I had a talk on zstd couple of years back, and one of the points was that it was better than xz across the board.
Use the pigz command for parallel gzip. Mark Adler also has an example floating around somewhere about how to implement basically the same thing using Z_BLOCK.
My main use case for 7z is bypassing corporate filters that block ZIPs from being sent.
I think gmail is onto you. They blocked one of my 7z files the other day.
Thankfully our corporate IT isn't onto me yet.
zip is such a shit standard, hell there are parts of it that are still undocumented and sharing documents between system zip implementations across mac and windows sometimes fails.
7-zip is the de-facto tool on Windows and has been for a long time. It's more than fast and compressed enough for 99% of peoples use cases.
It's not going anywhere anytime soon.
The more likely thing to eat into its relevance is now that Windows has built-in basic support for zipping/unzipping EDIT: other formats*, which relegates 7-zip to more niche uses.
7-zip is the de-facto tool on Windows and has been for a long time.
Agreed. The only thing I think it has been missing is PAR support. I think they should consider incorporating one of the par2cmdline forks and porting that code to Windows as well so that it has recovery options similar to WinRAR. It's not used by everyone but that should deprecate any use cases for WinRAR in my opinion.
Windows has had built in zip/unzip since vista. 7zip is far superior (and the install base proves that)
As mentioned in another comment, zip support actually goes further back as far as '98, but only Windows 11 added support for handling other formats like RAR/7-Zip/.tar/.tar.gz/.tar.bz2/etc.
That allows it to be a default that 'just works' for most people without installing anything extra.
The vast majority of users don't care about the extra performance or functionality of a tool like 7-zip. They just need a way to open and send files and the Windows built-in tool is 'good enough' for them.
I agree that 7-zip is better, but most users simply do not care.
Windows zip is not in fact good enough. I've run into weird, buggy behavior, hanging on extract, all sorts of nonsense. I can see the argument that a universally-adopted solution is better, but that's different from windows just not working.
I'm not saying I would ever use it. I'm saying that for casual non-power users, it's good enough. They work with it and if it breaks once in a blue moon they don't care. They just want it to open the files they get and give them a way to send files compressed.
That is enough to bite into 7-Zip's share of users.
Windows unzip is so ungodly slow and terrible! Long live 7zip!
Windows now has 7z support. I fear 7-zip will continue to lose relevancy for consumers of .7z files.
7-zip, through its .7z format, also supports AES encryption. I'd argue it's probably the easiest way to encrypt individual file archives that you need to access on both Windows and Linux. I have a script I periodically run that makes an encrypted .7z archive of all of my projects, which I then upload for off-site backup. (On-site, I don't bother encrypting.)
Is there something different about the built in zip context menu functionality now than before? I'm pretty sure you could convert something to a zip file since forever ago by right clicking any file.
It could support basic ZIP files, but only Windows 11 added support for 7-Zip (.7z), RAR (.rar), TAR, and TAR variants (like .tar.gz, .tar.bz2, etc).
That makes it 'good enough' for the vast majority of people, even if it's not as fast or fully-featured as 7-Zip.
Not that many people care about zstd; I would assume most 7-zip users care about the convenience of the gui.
It's been a long time since I used Windows, but back in the day I used 7-Zip exactly because it could open more or less $anything. That's also why we installed it on many customer computers.
On Linux bsdtar/libarchive gives a similar experience: "tar xf file" works on most things.
7-Zip is like VLC: maybe not the best, but it’s free (speech and beer) and handles almost anything you throw at it. For personal use, I don’t care much about efficient compression either computationally or in terms of storage; I just want “tar, but won’t make a 700 MB blank ISO9660 image take 700 MB”.
Windows 11 has shipped with bsdtar/libarchive for a few years. The gui shell support for archive files was recently changed to use libarchive which has increased the supported archive files which can be opened in the shell.
That's basically me! I really like 7-Zip because it opens most archive formats I have to work with and also the .7z format has pretty good compression for the stuff I want to store longer term.
in fact this is the first time I even hear about it, and I am semi-IT litterate. The prevalence of a compression standard is about how ubiquitous it is. For that one, I would vote "not even on the radar yet".
if by gui u mean the ability to right click a .zip file and unzip it just through the little window that pops up ur totally right. At least that + the unzipping progress bar is what I appreciate 7zip for
That's why 7zip should support it. People care about the convenience of the GUI and we all benefit from better compression being accessible with a nice GUI.
I just hope that the recipient will be able to open the file without too much difficulty. I am willing to sacrifice a few megabytes if necessary.
I use the right click context menu to run 7zip, why would you open a GUI?
That is a GUI!
.. but 7-zip has a pretty terrible GUI?
Hence why PeaZip is so popular, and J-Zip used to be before it was stuffed with adware.
If you're expecting a "mobile first" or similar GUI where most of the screen is dedicated to whitespace, basic features involves 7 or more mouse clicks and for some reason it all gets changed every ~6 months then yes the 7zip GUI is terrible.
Desktop software usability peaked sometime in the late 90s, early 2000s. There's a reason why 7zip still looks like ~2004
When compared to it's contemporaries the 7-zip GUI is noticeably worse. Back in 2004 WinRar and WinZip were both clearly superior.
Not sure what those gui improvments in winrar is. I prefer 7zip over all those for gui too.
You could have taken the 10 seconds to type in "PeaZip GUI" and seen that it is not a mobile interface and it is indeed much nicer than the 7-Zip interface.
Instead you chose to make a useless snarky comment. Be better.
Most people won't use that GUI, but will right click file or folder -> 7-Zip -> Add To ... and it will spit out a file without questions.
Granted Windows 11 has started doing the same for its zip and 7zip compressors.
Same trick goes for opening archives or executables (Installers) as archives.
Let's chat about Windows 11 right-click menu. I'm pretty sure they hid all the application menu extensions to avoid worst-case performance issues.
Exactly it. 3rd parties injecting their extensions harmed performance, which people turn around and blame Microsoft for.
People are really praising microsoft for for all three new "features" and tracking in win 11.
All the GUI I need is right click-> extract here or to folder. And 7zip is doing that nicely.
PeaZip is popular? It seems a lot less tested than 7zip; Last time I tried to use it, it failed to unpack an archive because the password had a quote character or something like that. Never had such crazy issues in 7zip myself.
> .. but 7-zip has a pretty terrible GUI?
Since you're asking, the answer is no. 7-Zip has an efficient and elegant UI.
I find the PeaZip gui to be awful to use. I much prefer the 7-zip gui.
I would never trust PeaZip.
The author updates code in the github repo....by drag and drop file uploads. https://github.com/peazip/PeaZip/commits/sources/
You are looking for 7-Zip Zstd: https://github.com/mcmilk/7-Zip-Zstd
I don't know what your use case is, but it seems to be quite a niche.
I was curious upon seeing this and found the thread where its inclusion was turned down: https://sourceforge.net/p/sevenzip/discussion/45797/thread/a...
I use this one too. This is the best one out of all the alternative 7zip with zstd. UI is same, has all the options and faster than those for zstd in my comparisons.
https://github.com/mcmilk/7-Zip-zstd
https://github.com/M2Team/NanaZip
It includes the above patches as well as few QoL features.
Tried it, compression is worse compared to 7-Zip-zstd by mcmilk for zstd, for same speed. The removal of text from toolbar icons is enough for me to never use it again. 7zip can change file associations directly with it and very easy. Feels like NanaZip is worse in QoL than 7zip.
Thanks! Any ideas why it didn't get merged? Clearly 7-Zip has some development activity going on and so does this fork...
Working with Igor Pavlov, the creator of 7-zip, does not seem very straightforward (understatement).
7-zip's development is very cathedral. Igor Pavlov doesn't look like he accepts contributions from the public.
Being a bit faster or efficient won't make most people switch. 7z offers great UX (convenient GUI and support for many formats) that keeps people around.
If anything, the gui and ux is terrible compared to winrar.
Since Windows 11 incorporated libarchive back in October 2023 there is less reason to use 7-zip on windows. I would be surprised if any of my friends even know what a zip file is let alone zstd.
If you ever try to extract an archive file of several gigabyte size with hundreds of thousands of files (I know, it's rare), the built-in one is as slow as a turtle compared to 7z.
As long as it does a better job than whatever Windows team packs into the OS, they're safe.
Even on latest Windows 11 takes minutes to do what 7-Zip does in seconds.
Goes to show how good all those leetcode interviews turn out.
Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. WinZip is a slow and bloated abomination, especially compared to 7-Zip. The right-click menu context entry for 7-Zip is very convenient and runs lightning fast. WinZip can't compete at all.
Mixing channels here, WinZip is a commercial product, unrelated to Windows 11 7-zip support, and my comment.
https://www.winzip.com
There are lots of 7zip alike with zstd support (it's a plugin effectively). On [corporate] Windows NanaZip would be my choice as it's available in Windows store.
on anything else - either directly zstd or tar
Why are they not adopting ztsd?
It already has- look up nanazip
Why was there a limitation on Windows? I can't find any such limit for Linux.
A lot of synchronization primitives in the NT kernel are based on a register width bit mask of a CPU set, so each collection of 64 hardware threads on 64 bit systems kind of runs in its own instance of the scheduler. It's also unfortunately part of the driver ABI since these ops were implemented as macros and inline functions.
Because of that, transitioning a software thread to another processor group is a manual process that has to be managed by user space.
Wow. That's surprisingly lame.
The NT kernel dates back to 1993. Computers didn’t exceed 64 logical processors per system until around 2014. And doing it back then required a ridiculously expensive server with 8 Intel CPUs.
The technical decision Microsoft made initially worked well for over two decades. I don’t think it was lame; I believe it was a solid choice back then.
Linux had many similar restrictions in its lifetime; it just has a different compatibility philosophy that allowed it to break all the relevant ABIs. Most recently, dual-socket 192-core Ampere systems were running into a hardcoded 256-processor limit. https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/yes-you-can-...
Tom's hardware is mistaken in their reporting. That's raisng the limit without using CPUMASK_OFFSTACK. The kernel already supported thousands of cores with CPUMASK_OFFSTACK and has at least since the 2.6.x days.
> Computers didn’t exceed 64 logical processors per system until around 2014.
Server systems were available with that since at least the late 90s. Server systems with >10 CPUs were already available in the mid-90s. By the early-to-mid 90s it was pretty obvious that was only going to increase and that the 64-CPU limit was going to be a problem down the line.
That said, development of NT started in 1988, and it may have been less obvious then.
"Server systems" but not server systems that Microsoft targeted. NT4 Enterprise Server (1996) only supported up to 8 sockets (some companies wrote their own HAL to exceed that limit). And 8 sockets was 8 threads with no NUMA back then, not something that would have been an issue for the purposes of this discussion.
Microsoft was absolutely wanting to target large servers at the time. They were actively trying to kill off the vendor unices in the 90s.
They successfully killed off vendor unicies in the 90s, but that was thanks to cheap x86.
That was what stuck, but supporting the big servers was also part of their multifaceted strategy. That's why the alpha, itanium, powerpc, and mips ports existed.
The Sun E10K (up to 64 physical processors) came out in 1997.
(Now, NT for Sparc never actually became a thing, but it was certainly on Microsoft's radar at one point)
SGI Origin did by 1996.
Though MS ported NT to a number of systems (mips, alpha, ppc) it wasn’t able to play in the very big leagues until later.
I agree it was a reasonable choice at the time. Few were getting mileage out of that many CPUs back then.
That was actually the DEC team from what I understand, Microsoft just hired all of their OS engineers when they collapsed
Dave Cutler left DEC in 1988 and started working on WINNT at MS, well before the collapse.
I mean, x86 didn't, but other systems had been exceeding 64 cores since the late 90s.
And x86 arguably didn't ship >64 hardware thread systems until then because NT didn't support it.
> And x86 arguably didn't ship >64 hardware thread systems until then because NT didn't support it.
If that were the case the above system wouldn't have needed 8 sockets. With NUMA systems the app needs to be scheduling group aware anyways. The difference here really appears when you have a single socket with more than 64 hardware threads, which took until ~2019 for x86.
Why would an application need to be NUMA aware on Linux? Most software I've ever written or looked at has no concept of NUMA. It works just fine.
The same reasons it would on macOS or Windows, most people just aren't writing software which needs to worry about having a single process running many hundreds of threads across 8 sockets efficiently so it's fine to not be NUMA aware. It's not that it won't run at all, a multi-socket system is still a superset of a single socket system, just it will run much more poorly than it could in such scenarios.
The only difference with Windows is a single processor group cannot contain more than 64 cores. This is why 7-Zip needed to add processor group support - even though a 96 core Threadripper represents as a single NUMA node the software has to request assignment to 2x48 processor groups, the same as if it were 2 NUMA nodes with 48 cores each, because of the KAFFINITY limitation.
Examples of common NUMA aware Linux applications are SAP Hana and Oracle RDBMS. On multi-socket systems it can often be helpful to run postgres and such via https://linux.die.net/man/8/numactl too, even if you're not quite the scale you need full NUMA awareness in the DB. You generally also want hypervisors to pass the correct NUMA topologies to guests as well. E.g. if you have a KVM guest with 80 cores assigned on a 2x64 Epyc host setup then you want to set the guest topology to something like 2x40 cores or it'll run like crap because the guest is sees it can schedule one way but reality is another.
There were single image systems with hundreds of cores in the late 90s and thousands of cores in the early 2000s.
I absolutely stand by the fact that Intel and AMD didn't pursue high core count systems until that point because they were so focused on single core perf, in part because Windows didn't support high core counts. The end of Denmark scing forced their hand and Microsoft's processor group hack.
AMD and Intel were focused on single core performance, because personal desktop computing was the bigger business until around mid to late 2000s.
Single core performance is really important for client computing.
They were absolutely interested in the server market as well.
Do you have anything to say regarding NUMA for the 90s core counts though? As I said, it's not enough that there were a lot of cores - they have to be monolithically scheduled to matter. The largest UMA design I can recall was the CS6400 in 1993, to go past that they started to introduce NUMA designs.
Windows didn't handle numa either until they created processor groups, and there's all sorts reasons why you'd want to run a process (particularly on Windows which encourages single process high thread count software archs) that spans numa nodes. It's really not that big if a deal for a lot of workloads where your working set fits just fine in cache, or you take the high hatdware thread count approach of just having enough contexts in flight that you can absorb the extra memory latency in exchange for higher throughput.
3.1 (1993) - KAFFINITY bitmask
5.0 (1999) - NUMA scheduling
6.1 (2009) - Processor Groups to have the KAFFINITY limit be per NUMA node
Xeon E7-8800 (2011) - An x86 system exceeding 64 total cores is possible (10x8 -> requires Processor Groups)
Epyc 9004 (2022) - KAFFINITY has created an artificial limit for x86 where you need to split groups more granular than NUMA
If x86 had actually hit a KAFFINITY wall then the E7-8800 even would have occured years before processor groups because >8 core CPUs are desirable regardless if you can stick 8 in a single box.
The story is really a bit reverse from the claim: NT in the 90s supported architectures which could scale past the KAFFINITY limit. NT in the late 2000s supported scaling x86 but it wouldn't have mattered until the 2010s. Ultimately KAFFINITY wasn't an annoyance until the 2020s.
> other systems had been exceeding 64 cores since the late 90s.
Windows didn’t run on these other systems, why would Microsoft care about them?
> x86 arguably didn't ship >64 hardware thread systems until then because NT didn't support it
For publicly accessible web servers, Linux overtook Windows around 2005. Then in 2006 Amazon launched EC2, and the industry started that massive transition to the clouds. Linux is better suited for clouds, due to OS licensing and other reasons.
> Windows didn’t run on these other systems, why would Microsoft care about them?
Because it was clear that high core count, single system image platforms were a viable server architecture, and NT was vying for the entire server space, intending to kill off the vendor Unices.
. For publicly accessible web servers, Linux overtook Windows around 2005. Then in 2006 Amazon launched EC2, and the industry started that massive transition to the clouds. Linux is better suited for clouds, due to OS licensing and other reasons.
Linux wasn't the only OS. Solaris and AIX were NT's competitors too back then, and supported higher core counts.
Windows NT was originally intended to be multi-platform.
NT was and continues to be multi-platform.
That doesn't mean every platform was or would have been profitable. x86 became 'good enough' to run your mail or web server, it doomed other architectures (and commonly OSes) as the cost of x86 was vastly lower than the Alphas, PowerPCs, and so on.
Seems like this is a general Windows thing per https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/procthread/p... - applications that want to run on more than 64 CPUs need to be written with dedicated support for doing so.
The linked Processor Group documentation also says:
> Applications that do not call any functions that use processor affinity masks or processor numbers will operate correctly on all systems, regardless of the number of processors.
I suspect the limitation 7zip encountered was in how it checked how many logical processors a system has, to determine how many threads to spawn. GetActiveProcessorCount can tell you how many logical processors are on the system if you pass ALL_PROCESSOR_GROUPS, but that API was only added in Windows 7 (that said, that was more than 15 years ago, they probably could've found a moment to add and test a conditional call to it).
It isn't just detecting the extra logical processors, you have to do work to utilise them. From the linked text:
"If there are more than one processor group in Windows (on systems with more than 64 cpu threads), 7-Zip distributes running CPU threads across different processor groups."
The OS does not do that for you under Windows. Other OSs handle that many cores differently.
> more than 15 years ago, they probably could've found a moment to add and test a conditional call to it
I suspect it hasn't been an issue much at all until recently. Any single block of data worth spinning up that many threads for compressing is going to be very large, you don't want to split something into too small chunks for compression or you lose some benefit of the dynamic compression dictionary (sharing that between threads would add a lot of inter-thread coordination work, killing any performance gain even if the threads are running local enough on the CPU to share cache). Compression is not an inherently parallelizable task, at least not “embarrassingly” so like some processes.
Even when you do have something to compress that would benefit for more than 64 separate tasks in theory, unless it is all in RAM (or on an incredibly quick & low latency drive/array) the process is likely to be IO starved long before it is compute starved, when you have that much compute resource to hand.
Recent improvements in storage options & CPUs (and the bandwidth between them) have presumably pushed the occurrences of this being worthwhile (outside of artificial tests) from “practically zero” to “near zero, but it happens”, hence the change has been made.
Note that two or more 7-zip instances working on different data could always use more than 64 threads between them, if enough cores to make that useful were available.
Are you sure that if you don't attempt to set any affinities, Windows won't schedule 64+ threads over other processor groups? I don't have any system handy that'll produce more than 64 logical processors to test this, but I'd be surprised if Windows' scheduler won't distribute a process's threads over other processor groups if you exceed the number of cores in the group it launches into.
The referenced text suggests applications will "work", but that isn't really explicit.
They're either wrong or thinking about windows 7/8/10. That page is quite clear.
> starting with Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022 the OS has changed to make processes and their threads span all processors in the system, across all processor groups, by default.
> Each process is assigned a primary group at creation, and by default all of its threads' primary group is the same. Each thread's ideal processor is in the thread's primary group, so threads will preferentially be scheduled to processors on their primary group, but they are able to be scheduled to processors on any other group.
I mean, it seems it's quite clear that a single process and all of its threads will just be assigned to a single processor group, and it'll take manual work for that process to use more than 64 cores.
The difference is just that processes will be assigned a processor group more or less randomly by default, so they'll be balanced on the process level, but not the thread level. Not super helpful for a lot of software systems on windows which had historically preferred threads to processes for concurrency.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/procthread/p...
This explicitly says the feature is automatic and programs will not need to manually adjust their affinity.
> it'll take manual work for that process to use more than 64 cores.
No it won't.
It absolutely will. Your process is only assigned a single processor group at process creation time. The only difference now is that it's by default assigned a random processor group rather than inheriting the parent's. For processes that don't require >64 cores, this means better utilization at the system level. However you're still assigned <=64 cores by default per process by default.
That's literally why 7-zip is announcing completion of that manual work.
The 7zip code needed to change because it was counting cores by looking at affinity masks, and that limits it to 64.
It also needed to change if you want optimal scheduling, and it needed to change if you want it to be able to use all those cores on something that isn't windows 11.
But for just the basic functionality of using all the cores: >Starting with Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022, on a system with more than 64 processors, process and thread affinities span all processors in the system, across all processor groups, by default
That's documentation for a single process messing with its affinity. They're not writing that because they wrote a function to put different processes on different groups. A single process will span groups by default.
That depends on what format you're using. Zip compresses every file separately. Bzip and zstd have pretty small maximum block sizes and gzip doesn't gain much from large blocks anyway. And even when you're making large blocks, you can dump a lot of parallelism into searching for repeat data.
Windows has a concept of processor groups, that can have up to 64 (hardware) threads. I assume they updated 7zip to support multiple processor groups.
Every operating system, that's relevant in 2025, needs that concept. It is called NUMA. At some point you cannot model the system ignoring the memory affinity / closeness to the cores.
Modern AMD CPUs are literally consist of core groups on chiplets. It is better for an OS to make decisions / expose APIs for cores that are physically so far away from each other that moving data back-and-forth over the RAM, system bus or interconnect has significant time penalties.
Maybe WaitForMultipleObjects limit of 64 (MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS) applies?
An ugly limitation on an API that initially looks superior to Linux equivalents.
WaitForMultipleObjects is limited to 64... since forever.
Windows is a terrible operating system.
7zip has been the greatest usage for limbo x86 on mobile.
You just termux qemu-utils convert your qcow2 partitions to IMG and 7zip can read IMG file
Try yourself to see you can extract from your emulated windows
7-zip is one of the software that I miss since I’ve moved to macOS
Keka is also really nice!
https://www.keka.io/
Never heard of it, I'll give it a try!
If you're talking about the program you use in the terminal, you can install it via homebrew
No, the GUI. 7-zip integrates well with the shell: select a group of files, right click -> make zip file, and so on. Or right-click a zip file and select extract. If you're accustomed to Linux you might not know what they're talking about.
TortoiseGit (and TortoiseSVN) are similarly convenient. Right click a folder with an SVN repo checked out, and select "SVN update". Right-click an empty space, and select "SVN checkout". SVN was the main distribution method for some modding communities before things like Steam Workshop and Github, specifically because TortoiseSVN made it so convenient. Checkout into your addons folder, and periodically update. What could be simpler?
How about PeaZip?
I've used PeaZip in the past but only on Windows, I was not aware that a MacOS version exists! I'll give it a try. Cheers
Imagine voluntarily moving to mac.
How does that work? You cannot write to disk before you know the compressed size. Or if you do you can use a data descriptor but you cannot write concurrently.
I guess they buffer the compressed stream to RAM before writing to zip. If they want to keep their zip stable (always the same output given the same input), they also need to keep it a bit longer than necessary in RAM.
Maybe Windows allows a file to be constructed quickly from parts that are not necessarily multiples of the blocksize. Maybe they have a fast api for writing multiple files and then turning it into a single file. POSIX doesn't allow that, but it is quite old.
I think you get different compressed files depending on how many threads you use to compress
I've used pbzip2 which takes the same parallel blocked compression approach 7zip seems to be taking (using AI's analysis of the changes). Theoretically the compression is less efficient, but i haven't noticed a difference in practice.
https://xkcd.com/619/
I had initially migrated to NanaZip, but with Windows natively supporting the 7z format now, I'm not sure it's needing anymore.
This may or may not be a relevant question, but does the terminology of "zip" have the same origin as the zip disk drive?
No. Zip format significantly predates the zip disk.
[dead]
Wow, a program that doesn't matter anymore has been very very minimally enhanced on a platform that doesn't matter anymore, benefitting the 7 users that have more than 64 real cores with Windoes and are regularly compressing archives so large that it doesn't drastically reduce the compression ratio to split it into more thsn 64 sections.
Posting this link to hn has consumed more human potential than the thing it is describing will save up to the end of time.
A 1% speed improvement for 1% of 7zip users is several times more productive than your comment.
This will not deliver your stated threshold.
You only strengthen my point.
> a program that doesn’t matter anymore
The rest of this comment has, though gratuitously snarky, a point, but I don’t think claiming that 7zip is irrelevant as an independent statement is even remotely coherent.
tar.zstd is superior in basically every way, open, and portable
It's fine that we run in different circles, but I have yet to see one of these in the wild.
Betamax was better, too.
Betamax wasn't better. This is just a meme.
Half the internet is tar.xz. tar.zstd will probably replace that.
Betamax was objectively better in many categories; that it doesn't fit your narrative is now another one.
It was smaller, had better picture AND audio quality, and a better head to tape ratio.
It was also proprietary and stored less, which were 2 causes of it losing to VHS.
.zstd may END UP being a standard, or it may not, but sheer technical merit is not enough to guarantee it.
Betamax, as released, was not better than VHS. It also had very low recording times of like 1 hour per tape.
Betamax was updated repeatedly, as was VHS. At no point was contemporaneous consumer Betamax able to match VHS for quality with the same recording times.
This is a persistent myth propagated primarily by people who have probably never seen Betamax in use.
Often people compare a professional version of betamax to consumer versions of VHS as well.
It's funny 'coz it's true! But no slight against 7zip; it was good for its time.