Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

You can do this with a fairly complicated find command, which finds all of the ".dat" files and then zips them up. But putting the zip part into separate script is much easier to show: find . -name '*.dat' -exec my-script {} \; and my-script (which has to be in your PATH): #!/bin/sh zip -P my-password -m $(dirname $1)/$(basename $1 .dat).zip $1 and ...


0

You can create a zip file from a batch file. This can be done using the Shell.Application software code in Microsoft Windows, and it can be done using a command line, but some additional code is needed. e.g., Ansgar Wiechers's answer to user2868186's question contains code (near the bottom) which looks solid. As an alternative, Rob Vanderwoude's page on ...


1

So you are accessing the remote server shares via standard windows sharing (doesn't matter if it is over LAN or VPN). Windows threats it as another local disk. Everything you do with files stored there is done by the CPU on your PC. So the unzipping will be done on your CPU. If you have enough RAM, it won't download the zip file from remote server again as ...


1

Try this: @ECHO OFF SET var1=%1 SET var2=%2 E:\Erp\7z.exe u -tzip E:\Erp\Test1.zip %var1% copy /b %var2%\test1.zip E:\Erp\Final_output.zip


0

I don't believe that's what the tool is intended for. Its TechNet article says you can only decompress such files using Expand.exe. Additionally, it warns not to use Compress.exe on an NTFS filesystem, and instructs using Compact.exe instead. If you use Compact you will see that it enables compression at the filesystem level. I'm not sure which tool is ...


0

You should try to open these zip.xml files with a web browser or a text editor to confirm they really are XML. If this is the case, you will not be able to extract anything from them. Search for actual archives on your drive, or recreate them if you still have access to your old laptop. If those zip.xml files are binary and begin with PK letter (which is ...


2

Instead of -x "Icon" use -x "*Icon*"


0

Situation 3 is out because it's pointless re-compressing archives with the same algorithm. Between Situations 1 and 2 the latter definitely has more chance of resulting in a smaller archive, especially when you use larger dictionary sizes (the dictionary in simple words is the memory area used to find and compress repeated patterns in data). Plain old ZIP ...


0

First of all, keep the excellent arguments of @Julian Knight in mind. Even the best compression is useless if your archive is either too big to handle or gets corrupted by some flipped bits. If space is your main concern, it might be worthwhile to do some experiments with your particular data and different compression algorithms. Also, your 3rd approach ...


3

I doubt that the different schemes would make a lot of difference to be honest since the compression algorithms typically only look forward a limited amount in order to control memory use. The exception is S3 which would end up larger most likely since compressing a compressed file adds overheads but cannot compress. If you want better compression, look ...



Top 50 recent answers are included