We use only WIMs created by ImageX. ImageX havn't any problem with this files, but 7-zip can't correctly work with them. :(
Do you agree that reference count for some files is incorrect?
You can try to check it manually.
Probably some version of ImageX had the BUG.
"7-zip can't correctly work with them"
What is "correct work" for files that have such errors?
would it be daring to request real working recovery mechanism in 7zip?
what is now is not even worth mention so to speak - doesn't work.
even some simple stuff like decompress to pipe would be better than nothing
I have "problems" with recovering archives semi professionally (let's call it) when I recover some damaged data for someone (not professionally really but often) and when I get damaged .7z files I simply say people - it's impossible to recover anything from it
7z is pretty cool format, not perfect but good compressor and it's a shame really that recovering is so difficult
I believe large dictionary & solid archives makes recovery nearly impossible to recover, that is one reason zip/rar use small dictionary sizes. You might consider using the latest RAR5 1GB dictionary sizes coupled with recovery records to make your archives more resilient.
Tell your customers to use small dictionary sizes or create parity files for their archive collections...
How exactly is using a proprietary archive format (that you need to pay for to use) with gigantic dictionary sizes (1GB?!) and proprietary archive records going to make "archives more resilient"? Rar promotion in this thread isn't cool.
With 7-ZIP LZMA/LZMA2, you can make an archive's dictionary sizes anywhere from 64 kb to 64 MB in the (32-bit) GUI, up to 1 GB via command line.
Recovery success normally has less to do with dictionary sizes than it does with creating an archive with solid blocks. Whether its 7-zip, rar or any other compression format, creating a file with solid blocks makes recovery very difficult. Thus you create PAR2 files ("parity files" you mention) so that you can recover them from bad media, etc..
PAR2 files work the same way as winrar's "recovery records", but its free/open source instead of proprietary and work with every single computer file type on the planet (including 7-zip archives). Instead of just with rar files. The Sourceforge page (source & command line apps): http://sourceforge.net/projects/parchive/. Older Windows GUI client (QuickPar): http://www.quickpar.org.uk/. New Windows GUI client (MultiPar, yes the GUI is in English): http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA021385/.
With 7-zip, creating archives with solid blocks is optional. So for easier recovery off bad media, don't use solid blocks (making your archives larger) and/or (better) create PAR2 recovery records for the archives.
Didn't you read the part where I tell him to create parity files for their archive collection? It means any file, and to use one of many parity file creators that are available on the net.
RAR recovery records is just another form of the same thing, although proprietary, but is much easier for new user to use. I do not know of another archiver w/ integrated recovery/parity creation capabilities. Perhaps you know a few. I had thought RAR was closed source, free software, as the license that was more than a decade old still works. Free upgrade for life it seems. Anyhow it costs a bit more nowdays...
You have a LARGE non-solid file created using a LARGE dictionary that is corrupted, try recovering it compared w/ a LARGE non-solid file created using a SMALL dictionary. Get the point? duh?
Nice. I didn't go so far as saying the inappropriate "duh".
I wouldn't say that rar recovery records are much easier to use. They are normally much larger than you can make PAR2 files to be, take up more space on backup media and so on. And the Windows programs for creating PAR2 files I linked above are very simple to use. And you can use PAR2 files for recovery records of any file type.
Solid block archives, whether LZMA, rar or otherwise are far (far) harder to recover than non-solid archives without parity files. Regardless of dictionary size. That was the point.
One feature is missing: Mark several archives, right-click "unpack each to it's own subdirectory". Heavily used here with WinRAR.
Another question: Will, in the future, LZ4 http://fastcompression.blogspot.de/p/lz4.html be included for unpacking, maybe even packing?
Mark several archives, right-click and think about all suggested options.
I don't plan to work with LZ4 now.
Today I thought I'd try this new version and I noticed an issue when compressing and extracting 7GB worth of data. There are fewer files afterwards.
I've analyzed the situation, and it seems that some of the folder structure in there is too long for Windows, since I didn't think about it and just used my Desktop. So the problem is that there was no indication that anything went wrong, and 7-Zip just failed silently.
In the Windows API, MAX_PATH is 260 characters, 256 + 4 (drive letter, colon, backslash, & nul). Extended length paths such as paths separated by "\\?\" are approximate 32,767 chars as it can be expanded during run-time.
If you need this feature right now, I believe WinRAR has added 2048 char. path lengths in its latest WinRAR 5.0 beta for BOTH ZIP & RAR archives...
Woohoo, more inappropriate rar promotion this same poster did earlier.
No, the Windows API is not limited to 260 characters. The "extended length paths" are also available in the Windows API, but only "using Unicode". More information here. Windows Explorer (64 or 32 bit) is limited to dealing with 260 character path names, no matter what program you are using within it.
But 7-zip can in fact actually handle extremely long paths up to the full Unicode limit of 32767 characters using list files, as Igor (and others) mentions four years ago here.
Mr. Barker, I had thought WinRAR was still very low cost or practically free software. I had used it alot lately, so I just mentioned it in passing. I was just trying to "help" by answering a question a user had which I remembered encountering a similar issue w/ 7-zip a couple months ago.
I mentioned RAR because it is now capable of creating STANDARD ZIP files w/ very long paths right from the GUI, it was something I was unable to do w/ 7-Zip. I did not know about list files. However, the STANDARD ZIP files with long paths created by it can also be extracted using 7-Zip GUI as well.
This was the method I had used to to go around this very SAME problem without the need for list files.
Btw, it is people like you that will turn off people like me from ever trying to help other users with their problems. It's just not worth the aggravation. I'll probably just be a visitor and no longer contribute in this forum, thanks to you. You need to chill out and go make an appointment with your therapist.
Sorry if you were turned off. Then again you responded to me in a prior post by saying "duh" and the "therapist" insult here, so looks like it might have been suitable.
I just don't believe mentioning paid program alternatives is appropriate here. It happens far too often in forums for open source programs. Mentioning open-source alternatives to 7-zip? No problem.
And rar isn't free. The full program is $29 US. The only thing "free" you can get at its home site is a command line-only program for extracting from created archives. Same thing that 7-Zip's GUI does natively.
v9.30 alpha x64
-(a) Shell Context Icons!
-(b) New Icons!
In countless Posts, hundreds of 7-Zip Users have requested for the above
but Who gives a Damn...
Well the users give a damn, clearly. Igor doesn't because no-one is paying him. Which is why I moved to WinRAR because as a company, money is a great motivator to keep developing and giving people what they want. Doesn't always happen of course, but 7-Zip has lots of long-standing bugs/deficiencies that are starting to get a bit grating. Definitely a shame since I prefer 7-Zip's ability to handle things like .deb and .rpm files, but I hate its crap ISO support and lack of shell context icons.
Having said that, if you want better icons, go to the Links page on 7-zip.org and click on "7-Zip Theme Manager". It's a great little program that works wonders.
I've Already used the 7-Zip Theme Manager...
What's with urge to unnecessarily create posts in different threads about it? And what's with the need for Richard to promote winrar here (as so many random people seem to feel the urge to do, coincidence?).
If context menu icons are so incredibly important to your life, go ahead and spend $29 US (that you could have used for more important things) to buy a commercial program instead. With unknown support once the developer is no longer with us. Also lose the ability to create LZMA files with such a program.
Or use the open source 7-zip and spend the money on more important things in life. And use the free FileMenuTools program to create your own 7-zip context menu entry with an...icon (that most people are perfectly satisfied to live without).
You seem to think that money is not worth spending on software. How wrong you are. Free software isn't better just because it's free - people WILL spend money to buy a program that does something better, easier, or provides capabilities that a free tool cannot. Hell I still can't face using LibreOffice for anything I want to show other people - Impress is crap, the templates are crap, the fonts aren't antialiased in Windows like they are in PowerPoint, it's slow when moving between slides, and it has a tendency to crash at werid points.
And who cares about creating LZMA files? No-one uses them!
FFS there's no coincidence. It's just a pent-up irritation at the slow speed of 7-Zip development. I happen to LIKE 7-zip. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother posting here. But you and other make the mistake that complaining is just done for fun - it's not. It's due to frustration that a great archiving tool is being left for dead because Igor doesn't notice the competition is moving ahead of him.
Totaly agree of what you say!
My motivation to use 7z because it is open and for encrypting archives i only trust 7z.
When will be released this version?
The alpha started almost a year ago.
Could it be possible to have at least a beta?
GUI doesn't allow to select and copy checksums into clipboard.
You can use Ctrl+C to copy whole text from window.
No source code? I wonder is NSA is involved, afterall, 7zip deals with encryption...
There's no source code because Igor doesn't supply source for alphas. As he said at the beginning of this thread, "Source code will be released in future beta version."
Mentioning the NSA as an excuse for anything without supporting evidence does nothing but bring out the flames.
One Question Is The Project 7zip Dead Or Why the Last Stable version is 9.20 and From 2011 !
And The Alpha is 1 Year Old Version 9.30 ! And Why 7zip Doesnt Support Iso Files ?
There is big probability that next alpha version will be released before 2013-11-15.
7-Zip supports most of ISO files.
I'm glad to see the project is still alive and well... :)
Can you label the next release as BETA, rather than ALPHA, so that source code can be released? That way, GUI front-end authors/projects can feel comfortable integrating your code... and we can all experience some of the NEW and exciting features that you've added since 9.20... I hate to see the web community losing interest in the *.7z format....
Anyhow, thanx for the update!
Probably that new alpha version will have big number of new BUGs. It will require at least from 3 to 8 weeks to fix all critical bugs, so "beta" with source code can be expected in December 2013.
It's updated information about release date for next version.
Now I plan 7-Zip 9.31 alpha to 2013-11-25.
That's not much of an version update... 14 months to go from 9.30 -> 9.31.
I know version numbers aren't supposed to be taken too seriously, but 14 months for a minor version upgrade will put some people off.
Well, for me, it's a "Thank You for working on this and developing 7-zip further!" to Igor.
But, yes, I'm, too, looking forward for a new beta version with source. So Igor, pretty please with a cherry on top, publish a new beta or even an alpha, but with source. As long as the source is available, I don't mind finding bugs (as I've been warned before), but I'm somewhat reluctant to install a closed source version.
But, however and nevertheless, as I said before, thank You very much for working on 7-zip :=)
Well that's the good thing - Igor's indicated he'll release source with the next alpha/beta, finally. Heck I might even decide to go in and modify the ISO handling code so that it doesn't bitch every time a header doesn't perfectly match the ISO standard. :)
Some code is not finished still.
Release date for 7-Zip 9.31 alpha moves to 2013-11-29.
thanks for the update regarding the release date, we are looking forward to it
When can we expect a STABLE release? The last one is coming up on 3 years ago, and the latest BETA is over 2.5 years old. I know you don't have a lot of spare time, but a lot of people may be put off with the alpha's.
Then those people have to harden up and accept that 7-Zip is in perpetual alpha/beta versioning. Honestly the 9.30 alpha has no real bugs to speak of apart from some iffy ISO support (but that's less of a bug and more of Igor deliberately being stubborn on the fact that not all ISOs are 100% compliant with the standard, but are still out there and should still be viewable, as they can be with every other ISO viewer/mounter on the planet).
This is a development version.
Don't use 7-Zip 9.30 alpha to process important files and archives.
If you need more stable version, you can use 7-Zip 9.25 alpha.
Igors own words, and alpha in most peoples minds means unstable and buggy.
Is the interface of 7z.dll 9.30 compatible with 7z.dll 9.20?
I'm developing a wrapper Ruby library of 7z.dll, SevenZipRuby.
Currently, I'm developing it based on 7z.dll 9.20.
Could you share the information about the interface of new 7z.dll?
For example, IInArchive, IOutArchive and so on.
7z.dll 9.30 uses same old interfaces.
7z.dll 9.30 also supports some additional interfaces (for example, for better speed), but you can use old default interfaces.
Thank you for your reply!
7z.dll 9.30 also supports some additional interfaces (for example, for better speed),
7z.dll 9.30 also supports some additional interfaces (for example, for better speed),
I will check these new features after source code is published.
anyone here using the latest alpha, does it open winrar5 archives?
9.30 alpha can't open winrar 5
When there will be a support of Winrar 5 archives?
Supposedly there will be a new alpha of 7-Zip released this month, if Igor sticks to his predictions as mentioned above. Who knows, it might support WinRAR 5 archives.
Having said that, I haven't seen RAR5 archives in the wild yet (which makes sense - it's not the default so you have to specifically set it in WinRAR 5 when creating an archive, so most people don't). Unless you're making them yourself, you probably won't have too much of a concern right now.
Now the priority task is to release new alpha version and beta version with source code.
Then I can think about RAR5 things.
Was only curious, I have a few files here that were winrar5 format, but I have already changed them over to 7z and removed winrar from my system :) , will you be marking one of the older versions as stable Igor?
No worry Igor, 9.30 alpha is very good, we can certainly live with it for a few more months if you need to take your time for any reason.
Log in to post a comment.