1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

WinRAR and bottle necks?

Discussion in 'Windows & Other Software' started by Psy-Blade, 27 Sep 2009.

  1. Psy-Blade

    Gangster

    Joined: 11 Jun 2009

    Posts: 411

    Hey guys,

    I spend a large amount of time, rarring, unrarring and henerally working with archives.

    I've always wondered where the bottleneck is with regards winrars performance.

    I've got 4 instances now, rarring up a total of 120gb of data, using 90% of my cpu, however disk usuge is only around 20mb/s.

    if I have only one instance the CPU sits at around 10% and disk usage is very low, so whats slowing it down? Is it my ram??

    Thanks :)
     
  2. rpstewart

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2003

    Posts: 10,744

    Location: Greenock, Scotland

    I'm surprised at that, normally the disk is the bottleneck with WinRAR.
     
  3. Psy-Blade

    Gangster

    Joined: 11 Jun 2009

    Posts: 411

    That was my initial thought, that my disks couldn't feed my cpu fast enough. But I opened up resource monitor and the source file was only being read at around 8mb/s.
     
  4. Pho

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,133

    Location: Derbyshire

    Have you tried other programs to compare speed? 7-zip will read rar files but not write them - instead it has 7z compression which is much better in my experience.
     
  5. Psy-Blade

    Gangster

    Joined: 11 Jun 2009

    Posts: 411

    Hmm I've always used winrar out of habit. I hadn't actually considered using anything else though I find when I do find a 7z file less people know what to do with it. Oh well, I guess I could try it :).

    Thanks
     
  6. rpstewart

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 11 Mar 2003

    Posts: 10,744

    Location: Greenock, Scotland

    Is anything else using the disk(s)?
     
  7. Psy-Blade

    Gangster

    Joined: 11 Jun 2009

    Posts: 411

    Nope nothing :(. Highest read is System (file is the one winrar is using) at 8mb.
     
  8. Frapple

    Mobster

    Joined: 4 Nov 2007

    Posts: 4,512

    Are you reading and writing to the same disk?
     
  9. TheVoice

    Capodecina

    Joined: 15 Aug 2005

    Posts: 21,527

    Location: Glasgow

    If you're on a 64-bit version of Windows, perhaps try the 64-bit version of WinRAR. Not sure what difference it makes to performance though, if any.
     
  10. sturmtruppe

    Hitman

    Joined: 27 Feb 2009

    Posts: 571

    Location: Hinckley

    any version before 3.90 is a waste of time.

    3.90 is x64 compatible, can properly make use of multiple cores and is just generally better, its so good infact that ive actually paid for it.
     
  11. Psy-Blade

    Gangster

    Joined: 11 Jun 2009

    Posts: 411

    Yeah I'm using the 64bit version 3.90 too.

    I'm reading and writing to the same disk but its 2x Samsung F3's in raid 0 with am average read of 200mb/s across the disk.

    Thanks for all your ideas guys, I thought I was right in thinking that it should use more than maybe 5-10% of my system resources. I wonder where the issue is :S.