Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

Expand.exe vs Cabarc.exe - extracting files

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,510 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I was wondering if there's any difference in speed when extracting files using expand.exe and cabarc.exe so I've just done a simple test. I took all *.*_ files from XP SP3 (2674 files total), put them into a folder called "1" and then expanded all of them into a new folder called "2".


  • EXPAND -R 1\* 2\ >NUL
    Time: 0:42

  • FOR /F "delims=" %%A IN ('DIR/B/S 1') DO cabarc x "%%A" 2\ >NUL
    Time: 0:33

  • FOR /F "delims=" %%A IN ('DIR/B/S 1') DO EXPAND -R "%%A" 2\ >NUL
    Time: 6:08

Cabarc.exe is almost 25% faster than Expand.exe when used like in 1. and 2. but if you use Expand.exe in a loop like 3. then it's time to switch to Cabarc.exe since the difference in speed is huge.
post-47483-1123010975.png
Unofficial Service Pack 5.2 for MS Windows 2000 <- use this topic if you need help with UURollup, Update Rollup 2 and other unofficial packages


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
bphlpt

bphlpt

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,796 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
From what you show above, I don't see any situation where using Expand is faster than Cabarc.

I wonder if there are any speed improvements over here when using the versions that include an "-r" option, vs using a FOR loop, when that capability is required.

Cheers and Regards

Edited by bphlpt, 05 April 2013 - 10:08 AM.

Posted Image


#3
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,510 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I wanted to say that Cabarc is always faster but the difference isn't that dramatic in case of 1. and 2. On the other hand, 2. is MUCH faster than 3.

Edited by tomasz86, 05 April 2013 - 10:12 AM.

post-47483-1123010975.png
Unofficial Service Pack 5.2 for MS Windows 2000 <- use this topic if you need help with UURollup, Update Rollup 2 and other unofficial packages

#4
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 13,999 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
And how would 7-zip compare? :unsure:

jaclaz

#5
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,510 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
7-Zip


  • 7z.exe x 1\* -o"2" >NUL
    Time: 0:24

  • FOR /F "delims=" %%A IN ('DIR/B/S 1') DO 7z.exe x "%%A" -o"2" >NUL
    Time: 1:08

Edited by tomasz86, 05 April 2013 - 11:16 AM.

post-47483-1123010975.png
Unofficial Service Pack 5.2 for MS Windows 2000 <- use this topic if you need help with UURollup, Update Rollup 2 and other unofficial packages

#6
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 13,999 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Strange results. :unsure:

I mean it is obvious that going through a FOR /F loop in batch should eat some time, but while 7-zip (as expected ;)) is prolly faster than both EXPAND and CABARC, when using the wildcard specification, it is greatly slower through the loop.
This should mean that *somehow* 7-zip is very "slow" at initializing or that cabarc (that you have necessarily timed only in the FOR loop) is d@mn fast at it.

Which version of cabarc.exe did you test ?

There could be some differences, I have an oldish:
Microsoft ® Cabinet Tool - Version 1.00.0601 (03/18/97) <- 114.688 byte
And:
Microsoft ® Cabinet Tool - Version 5.00.2134.1 <- 65.808 byte
Microsoft ® Cabinet Tool - Version 5.1.2600.0 <- 62.976 byte

Same goes for Expand.exe and for 7-zip (actually I think there are probably more versions of it that stars in the sky)

But can you try also 7za.exe?
I suspect that the extra time is because 7z is not "standalone" whilost 7za is :blink:

BTW (and as a side note) 7zip may have (actually has) issues with CASE of filenames.

jaclaz

#7
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,510 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
It was cabarc.exe 6.2.9200.16438 (from Windows 8), expand.exe 6.1.7600.16385 from Windows 7 and 7z.exe 9.20.0.0. All tests were conducted in Windows 2000.

I'll try to check other versions later.
post-47483-1123010975.png
Unofficial Service Pack 5.2 for MS Windows 2000 <- use this topic if you need help with UURollup, Update Rollup 2 and other unofficial packages




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN