Talk:Comparison of archive formats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Splitsection.svg This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Archive format, due to size or style considerations.

Contents

[edit] Purpose (Statement of Intent)

This article has no defined purpose or statement of intent. It is also in duplication/competition with the article List of archive formats. Request discussion on the purpose and intent of this aub-article to differentiate it from other sub-articles.

[edit] Rationale

  • ISO 9660 - It is not strictly an archive format, and more commonly referred to as a file system, but it can be used for archiving, and that's why I included it. --Boborok 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] archive FORMAT ???

how can we compare archive format...that's impossible and very limitated why not a larger article including:

  • filesystem with compression such as fat,ext2,squashfs,cramfs,cloop,ziofs
  • compare the compression algoritm and their implementations(that can difers a lot,for example bzip2 have different implementation that have different results(an example is bzip2 that have several implementation with technical differences such as blocksize but are compatible with the standard implementation))

but first we can present the metods of compressions because some can't be included in a comparison such as hard-links but such thing is obviously a way to save space... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.189.165.28 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC).

mabe we just need to find a new name to this page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 00 tux (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC).
"How can you compare archive formats?" It's not only possible, but this page is an example of how it can be done. Guy Harris 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] File system comparison?

Why is that here, rather than on Comparison of file systems? Guy Harris 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of this article

Alright, I spent a good two and a half hours trying to begin the process of cleaning this article up. Considering the subsequent reversion, I feel that it is necessary to address the purpose of this article.

First, I feel it is necessary to understand that an archive is a file that contains other files. This explicity includes any formats that fufill at least this purpose, which therefore means formats designed solely for archiving, for archiving and compression, and for software distribution/packaging. As such, I have reverted the article to my changes, omitting the compress-only formats.

I feel, however, that it is pertinent to leave those formats in place, because archive-only formats almost always use one of them. This is restricted, of course, to those formats that function as wrappers (bzip2, gzip, compress, rzip, etc.). A more detailed list of compression algorithms is needed, yes, but it does not mean this page cannot also include a brief mention of related formats—the archive-and-compress formats inherently mention a compression algorithm, anyway!—Kbolino 06:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. but this also means that such formats look more limited than they are in real life. For example, tar is almost exclusively used together with gzip/bzip2, and these compressions add integrity checking (but the the table says tar has partial integrity checking). --Crashie 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long filenames

We need very detailed information about how each archive format handles long filenames. Since these formats are used to transfer files, perhaps between very different OSes, what happens to the names? What if the name is not valid in the receiving system? What about FAT LFNs, which is really a dual-name system? Is only the LFN stored in the archive, the 8.3 is not stored? Then the 8.3 is regenerated by a receiving FAT, and thus may change? What if the archive is made on a Linux OS with native long name support, and there are two files that differ only in case, and the archive is received in a FAT LFN system that does not allow duplicate filename that differ only in case? 69.87.203.23 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical limitations

The most important technical aspects are missing:

  • The longest possible archive filesize
  • The maximum amount of files contained in the archive
  • The longest possible filename contained in the archive
  • Other special features (like: file recovery records, storage of file attributes, etc.)

--Loh 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for new collum

I've got a idea for a new collum: how big is the archive if you packed ###mb of data into it (e.g 100mb). People can then use the data to make a disission on whether to use one format or another, depending on the packed size. --Stinkfly 19:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Improvements

Since this article is flagged for improvement, I added an introductory section with explanations of the table contents. I believe that the Integrity column should be renamed Error Detection and that the Recovery column should be renamed Error Correction. These are the proper technical terms. Before you go adding a bunch of new columns (max size, max files, filename size, special features, compressibility, etc.) I believe that you'll need to fill in all the existing question marks before adding a fleet of new ones. Carl Gusler 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

Somebody should mention the XAR format, since it's now officially being used by Apple (in their mkpg archives). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.68.218 (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)