113 lines
5.4 KiB
Prolog
113 lines
5.4 KiB
Prolog
|
||
ARC VERSUS LBR
|
||
|
||
|
||
I decided to test the ARC utility against the SQ and LBR utilities to see
|
||
if it would be a good thing to switch over to ARC, or to try to maintain
|
||
LBR files in an increasingly dominated ARC world.
|
||
|
||
I selected the 30 BASIC files listed below for the test since they
|
||
contained a mix of ASCII and tokenized files, (and mostly because they were
|
||
sitting in a sub-directory already and were about the right size). The
|
||
tests were conducted on an IBM PC with an external hard disk - floppies
|
||
would have taken too long. As you can see already I used nothing but the
|
||
most "rigorous" test methods.
|
||
|
||
The source files: 30 BASIC Programs totalling 139,030 bytes.
|
||
|
||
The ARC utility was invoked: ARC a BASFINPG *.*.
|
||
The resultant file took 12 minutes 20 seconds to produce and was 95,571
|
||
bytes large.
|
||
|
||
|
||
I used ZIP082.EXE to tag and SQueeze the BASIC files and then invoked LUU
|
||
with: LUU FINPGBAS *.?Q? I responded with 36 for the number of slots.
|
||
When LUU was through, I entered ERASE *.?Q?. The resultant file was
|
||
116,096 bytes large and the three step process took 8 minutes and 6
|
||
seconds.
|
||
|
||
|
||
I didn't really come up with any startling data, other than the time
|
||
difference - I didn't think it would be that much. My "conclusions":
|
||
|
||
COMPRESSION RATE (to original file)
|
||
ARC = 68.7%
|
||
SQ & LBR = 83.5%
|
||
|
||
The ARC file is 17.7% smaller than the .LBR file. What this
|
||
means is the per 100Kb of file, the ARC file will be 17.7Kb
|
||
smaller, or 1.77Mb per 10 MB, if your files are like the
|
||
files used in this test. Another way of looking at it is
|
||
about 64Kb per floppy. Not bad!
|
||
|
||
|
||
TIME FACTORS
|
||
|
||
The ARC File took 12 minutes 20 seconds versus the SQ & LBR
|
||
times of 8 minutes and 6 seconds. You could say that the
|
||
ARC utility is 53.3% slower, or the SQ & LBR utilities are
|
||
34.6% faster (even having to do three operations). The time
|
||
in minutes per 100 KB of original file are 8.9 minutes for
|
||
ARC and 5.8 minutes for SQ & LBR. To do 1 floppy (362Kb)
|
||
would take 32.22 minutes using ARC and 21 minutes for SQ &
|
||
LBR. A 10Mb hard disk would result in 890 minutes (14.83
|
||
hrs.) for ARC and 580 minutes (9.67 hrs.) for SQ & LBR.
|
||
|
||
|
||
I think another factor that should be considered is data transfer time.
|
||
Most of these files get moved by modem. What is the time difference at
|
||
1200 Baud? 300 Baud?
|
||
|
||
Does the time savings for creating a SQ & LBR file offset the file size
|
||
savings of ARC? I think I could have improved on the SQ & LBR times, but
|
||
there is no way I could make the ARC times faster. How important is the
|
||
"on-line" time? How much of a factor is ease of use, (one command and file
|
||
versus three)?? LUE and LUU are pretty small files as is SQPC. ZIP is
|
||
pretty large but it does many, many other things. I could have used ZIP
|
||
for the LBR file creation as well as the squeeze, but I thought it was a
|
||
little easier to exit and use LUU because of the wild cards. Other SQ
|
||
utilities (than ZIP's) might offer better compression ratios?
|
||
|
||
I would like to know what other people think? Should we start consciously
|
||
shifting over to ARC, or should we reconsider?? My name is Bob Hobbs and I
|
||
can be reached at:
|
||
|
||
PC Spectrum 714/980-8607 RBBS
|
||
Zaphod's Machine 714/626-1843 FIDO
|
||
|
||
|
||
. <DIR> 08:1484 31:55 INCOME .BAS 8832 22Oct82 00:02
|
||
.. <DIR> 08:1484 31:55 KALCOL .BAS 896
|
||
BALANCE .BAS 512 29Jul82 03:15 LEASE .BAS 2176 22Oct82 00:02
|
||
BESTLINE.BAS 896 01Jan80 00:03 LEASEBUY.BAS 2944 15Jun84 07:58
|
||
BOND .BAS 2816 22Oct82 00:02 MEAN .BAS 640 25Apr82
|
||
BUDGET .BAS 7808 29Jan83 01:09 NETPREST.BAS 896 22Oct82 00:03
|
||
COMPOUND.BAS 768 22Oct82 00:02 NUMERIC .BAS 1280 22Oct82 00:03
|
||
CRITICAL.BAS 2176 22Oct82 00:03 PERT .BAS 3072 22Oct82 00:03
|
||
FINANCE .BAS 22016 31Jan83 21:54 PRLIST .BAS 3584 01Jan80 00:15
|
||
FINANCE1.BAS 6400 25Jan82 PVTAX .BAS 640 22Oct82 00:03
|
||
FINANCEA.BAS 21114 28May84 13:13 REGRESS .BAS 768 25Apr82
|
||
FINPAC .BAS 16640 29May84 09:27 REPORTS .BAS 10496
|
||
FUTURE .BAS 896 22Oct82 00:03 RLTYLOAN.BAS 5916 27Apr85 22:13
|
||
GROWTH .BAS 1792 STATPAK .BAS 9984 28May84 11:04
|
||
GROWTH1 .BAS 1536 18Jul82 16:13 TREASURY.BAS 1536 22Oct82 00:02
|
||
139030 Bytes in 30 File(s);
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Notes added by sysop of FIDO 107/7 24 Sept 85
|
||
|
||
The difference in file transfer time is about 4 mins for each 20k
|
||
difference in file length. About the same figures for the test above.
|
||
Baud rates will give some difference in file transfer time. (protocol
|
||
overhead reduces the effects of baud rate)
|
||
|
||
The above test uses 2 common file types, and may give good results,
|
||
however your results may vary.
|
||
|
||
The version of ARC in the test is not given, version 2.3 is faster
|
||
then earlier versions.
|
||
|
||
In our experence, the savings in disk space are more important
|
||
then the time to ARC something.
|
||
|