Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 138 of 138

Thread: BIT Archiver

  1. #121
    Programmer osmanturan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mersin, Turkiye
    Posts
    651
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Berger View Post
    Nothing really new but v4m was a little bit faster then f4m and f6m really slow
    Yep. You are right. f6m is the slowest variant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Berger View Post
    Ah I forgot. I used the default option (3) My commandline was only "a enwik8"

    Why was my time so much under the time from m^2?
    Q6600 is a monstrous CPU for BIT due to large cache Seems my contexts for mixer and/or SSE are very big. I'll try to reduce them for increasing speed. Or maybe, the reason is match model which isn't optimized much.
    BIT Archiver homepage: www.osmanturan.com

  2. #122
    Tester
    Black_Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    [CZE] Czechia
    Posts
    471
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
    Athlon 64 X2 3800+, 2GB RAM, XP SP2: EDIT: -p5
    Code:
    bit07   221.618 s (440 KB/s)
    bit_f4m 216.825 s (450 KB/s)
    bit_v4m 222.151 s (439 KB/s)
    bit_f6m 241.524 s (404 KB/s)
    I am... Black_Fox... my discontinued benchmark
    "No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time? I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again." -- Bill Gates

  3. #123
    Member chornobyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    ua/kiev
    Posts
    153
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Athlon XP 2200+ barton L2 512k, ram 512MB 266mhz, XP SP3, -p=4 330MB
    Code:
    07 331.344 s 294 KB/s 20894302
    f4 325.609 s 300 KB/s 21198238
    v4 334.797 s 291 KB/s 21204015
    f6 358.157 s 272 KB/s 20891192

  4. #124
    Programmer osmanturan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mersin, Turkiye
    Posts
    651
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    @Black_Fox,
    @chornobyl:
    Thanks a lot!

    Seems on all platform, f4m is the winner. I'll use it. Thanks everyone. I wonder how these variants perform on LovePimple's ancient computer (Pentium III). It would be useful to see performance on a very old platform.
    BIT Archiver homepage: www.osmanturan.com

  5. #125
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
    Maybe a bit late but only just saw it

    E8500 @ 3265 Mhz 6Mb L2, 4Gb, XP SP3

    Code:
    -p=1
    07  87.875s  1111 KB/s
    f4  80.078s  1219 KB/s
    f6  87.656s  1114 KB/s
    v4  79.797s  1224 KB/s
    
    -p=3
    07  88.625s  1102 KB/s
    f4  81.188s  1203 KB/s
    f6  88.828s  1099 KB/s
    v4  80.781s  1209 KB/s
    
    -p=5
    07  98.672s  989  KB/s
    f4  86.063s  1135 KB/s
    f6  93.734s  1042 KB/s
    v4  85.625s  1140 KB/s

  6. #126
    Programmer osmanturan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mersin, Turkiye
    Posts
    651
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    @Intrinsic: Thanks a lot!

    Today I'm very happy to catch a good trade-off. Now, there is up to 32% speed gain on ENWIK8

    Code:
    BIT 0.7
    20,823,204 bytes @ ~649 kb/s (150.416 seconds)
    
    BIT (Under development)
    21,383,162 bytes @ ~859 kb/s (113.709 seconds)
    I believe that I can close the gap (even it's possible to go further) with optimizing context masks. But, I have to implement a data detection mechanism first
    BIT Archiver homepage: www.osmanturan.com

  7. #127
    Tester
    Black_Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    [CZE] Czechia
    Posts
    471
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
    I hope older platform results will still be of some use... now with slightly exotic flavour
    Pentium III E 1 GHz, 512 MB RAM, ReactOS 0.3.7

    Code:
    bit07   631.818 s
    bit_f4m 545.110 s
    bit_v4m 547.285 s
    bit_f6m 553.103 s
    Last edited by Black_Fox; 4th January 2009 at 17:37.
    I am... Black_Fox... my discontinued benchmark
    "No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time? I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again." -- Bill Gates

  8. #128
    Programmer osmanturan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mersin, Turkiye
    Posts
    651
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    @Black_Fox: Thanks!
    Your test is important for me. Even on an ancient computer, f4m is the speed winner (and also increased the gap between 0.7). So, my choice (f4m) is good even on old computers. Thanks again!
    BIT Archiver homepage: www.osmanturan.com

  9. #129
    Tester
    Stephan Busch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremen, Germany
    Posts
    872
    Thanks
    457
    Thanked 175 Times in 85 Posts

    BIT 0.7

    Hi Osman,

    I have just finished testing BIT 0.7 with max settings
    and can tell it nearly reaches LPAQ strength.
    Should I also test any of the BIT 0.8 executables?

  10. #130
    Programmer osmanturan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mersin, Turkiye
    Posts
    651
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephan Busch View Post
    Hi Osman,

    I have just finished testing BIT 0.7 with max settings
    and can tell it nearly reaches LPAQ strength.
    Should I also test any of the BIT 0.8 executables?
    Wow...That's great! Thanks a lot! I'm curious about BIT 0.8 prerelease timing on your test set but I don't expect too much difference above listed benchmarks. So, if we think again that they're just some very experimental prerelease version (not final 0.8 version), there would be no reason to test on your huge test set. I only tested some trade-offs for routing a new way for future improvements and I decided to use f4m variant with extra speed-up (new mixer and no final-SSE - so, it's possible to catch >32% extra speed ) . I hope, I will finally catch >1MB/secs processing speed. Thanks again.

    BTW, for a long time you were inactive. How are you?
    BIT Archiver homepage: www.osmanturan.com

  11. #131
    Tester
    Stephan Busch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremen, Germany
    Posts
    872
    Thanks
    457
    Thanked 175 Times in 85 Posts
    So I could test f4m if you want..

    Yes I was inactive for a long time..
    I just needed some time on my own and was busy in other real life projects
    but now I'm back and plan to release an update next weekend.
    By the way: The hall of fame still lacks a picture from you. Would you mind sending me one so that I can add you to the gallery?

  12. #132
    Programmer osmanturan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mersin, Turkiye
    Posts
    651
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephan Busch View Post
    So I could test f4m if you want..
    I'll glad to see f4m variant in your benchmark. Could you write "0.8 prerelease" as version information?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephan Busch View Post
    Yes I was inactive for a long time..
    I just needed some time on my own and was busy in other real life projects...
    If you are OK and happy, there is no problem then
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephan Busch View Post
    but now I'm back and plan to release an update next weekend.
    This is really what I was waiting for. Thanks a lot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephan Busch View Post
    By the way: The hall of fame still lacks a picture from you. Would you mind sending me one so that I can add you to the gallery?
    I'll send as soon as possible. Thanks a lot.
    BIT Archiver homepage: www.osmanturan.com

  13. #133
    Tester
    Stephan Busch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremen, Germany
    Posts
    872
    Thanks
    457
    Thanked 175 Times in 85 Posts
    Hi Osman,

    the f4m variant is not faster on my system and compresses 80 MB worse compared to BIT 0.7. both programs were run in -p=5 mode.

  14. #134
    Programmer osmanturan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mersin, Turkiye
    Posts
    651
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I've already expected a compression dropping due to unoptimized context masks (only high orders contexts were used: order 2-4, 6 which are suitable for text compression - not binary). But, I didn't expect worser speed Possible reason could be increased random access due to binary files with high order modeling. I'm sure next version will be much faster. BTW, I plan to put extra codecs to BIT for practical purposes: ROLZ and BWT. I hope, everyone will be happy with future improvements.

    P.S: Forgive me, but I'm too curious about test results. When do you plan to update exactly?
    BIT Archiver homepage: www.osmanturan.com

  15. #135
    Tester
    Stephan Busch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremen, Germany
    Posts
    872
    Thanks
    457
    Thanked 175 Times in 85 Posts
    I can send them by email, because the whole chart is not ready for upload now.. so you may give me your email address?

  16. #136
    Programmer osmanturan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mersin, Turkiye
    Posts
    651
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Thanks a lot. You can send it to osman att osmanturan com (I hope, the spams can't get my mail address )
    BIT Archiver homepage: www.osmanturan.com

  17. #137
    Tester
    Stephan Busch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremen, Germany
    Posts
    872
    Thanks
    457
    Thanked 175 Times in 85 Posts
    Hi osman

    Did you get my mail? A new mail I wrote today bounced back -
    there must be a blocker active..

    Greetings,
    Stephan

  18. #138
    Programmer osmanturan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mersin, Turkiye
    Posts
    651
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I got your only one mail and just replied with a bit long content. Sorry for writing late. I was busy with two overlapped projects which must be finished until this weekend

    Edit: You can try also this mail address osmanturancom att gmail com
    BIT Archiver homepage: www.osmanturan.com

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Poor compression of bit-version of PPM
    By Stefan in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 16th March 2010, 16:58
  2. Do you have a 64-bit machine at home?
    By encode in forum The Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 4th December 2009, 14:09
  3. Bit guessing game
    By Shelwien in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 24th November 2009, 02:22
  4. RINGS Fast Bit Compressor.
    By Nania Francesco in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 26th April 2008, 21:58
  5. Bit Archive Format
    By osmanturan in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 29th December 2007, 00:57

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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