Last time I read about problems with large 7z SFX archive (> 100 Gb) on russian site (CyberForum.ru). Problem was intensively tested (600 Gb free on HDD, 28 Gb RAM) - SFX-archive each time was broken for large files. Relatively small archives (up to 30 Gb on some computer was OK). But I'm personally seen as 7z create broken ordinal archives on medium size files (~400 Mb) if allowed memory was very low. I think this is just a BUG - no ErrCode returned or checked inside COM-chain calls or smth like.

Also, no matter if a few bits flipped due disk or transmission error - with Rar ECC procedure it just a few extra clicks to recover damaged data, but 7z archive dead.

Sorry forjumping in so late but Check out for Mr.teddy rogers post on LZMA vs LZMA2 vs WinRAR64.....in depth analysis :)

hxxps://forum.tuts4you.com/topic/19897-lzma-vs-lzma2-vs-winrar64/

Rar Compression is much more efficient in terms of processor usage, memory usage compared to 7z's LZMA / LZMA2 and also good for recovering from damaged archives. My experience is in using Rar compression for data backups of terabytes of data on a weekly basis for the last couple of years, mostly in semi automated manner. Though I get very rare requests for data restores (restoring backed up data from Rar archives), some times I have faced corrupt Rar archives which were repaired with very minimal data loss. 7z was tried parallely, but was abandoned due to too much cpu / mem usage.

Don't know what this discussion is for?
RAR, ZIP, 7Z or whatever, they all are doing their best.

Having 1 735 512 Bytes or 1 386 999 Bytes isn't so much important in time of fast internet.

I'm mostly using WinRAR, it's fast, small archives, it's secure and rebuilding a damaged archive is really working sometimes... :D

May be I'm on wrong way, but why should I change my archiver?

I quite like 7z personally, it is free at least and will not cause trouble when using in a production environment.

7z offers functionalties that is comparable with winrar and winzip.

I think one feature these compression ware need to support is to mount the zipped file as iso images, such as the function of winmount.

Not every one has fast internet. Such as myself. I live in the middle of no where and my net caps at a whopping 150kb/s. So every bit helps with saving space for me to make downloads faster. :(

try PeaZip it supports even more drastic compression formats

Personally, I think 7z is the best.

From the look of it PeaZip is just a front-end for other archivers. Does it offer its own format as well? Don't see anything mentioned on their site for a custom format though.

Either way, looks like a nice alternative UI for all the archives. :)
Thanks for the link.

Winrar uses various filters (compression alogs for diff. sources), 7zip not. Personally I prefer 7zip. But if you guys want test one of the best packer, test nanozip hxxp://nanozip.net/ it is really good.

Am I the only one that is constantly running into corruption issues with the new RAR5 format? It has gone so far that I've been contemplating moving away from Winrar altogether.

It is similar problem I have encountered with winrar the solution is make sure u have x86 and x64 installed on your computer.

That's actually not true - 7Zip also supports filters (x86/x64 executable code, PPC, IA64, ARM, SPARC, delta filter).
WinRAR dropped support for most of the specific filters in v5 (from the changelog: "RAR 5.0 format includes Intel IA-32 executable and delta compression algorithms, but RAR 4.x text, audio, true color and Itanium algorithms are not supported. These excluded algorithms are not efficient for modern data types and hardware configurations").

7zip slow in extracting archives. i use winrar and 7zip.

7zip is free, that's the big differrent with WnRAR ,hahaha