www.ice-graphics.com Forum Index www.ice-graphics.com
The main forum for the ICE-Graphics software
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Fastest ECC??? You have to be kidding right???

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.ice-graphics.com Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cr1t1c



Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:11 pm    Post subject: Fastest ECC??? You have to be kidding right??? Reply with quote

Hi,

As a noob to error correction I've done my research & come up with all good Reed-Solomon alternatives namely; QuickPar (oldest), dvdisaster (specialist) and ICEECC (NKOTB)...

While all 3 have different characteristics, all can be used for same kind of error correction with 'additional tools'. ICEECC's so called unique features of "folders", "unicode" can simply be added to others by mountable container tools (e.g. virtual hard disk type of tools) and ECC'ing simply the container instead of individual files...

Only "really unique" feature of ICEECC seemed to be utilizing multi-core (multi-thread) approach since QuickPar is long abandoned and dvdisaster doesn't support this AFAIK. The other features listed on the help are either present on others or not so important (for common use)...

Having said those I can't simply ignore the statement "fastest implementation of R-S codes in the world" is just vain and way far from the truth. If you're to test* this yourself you may prove otherwise but with what? Have you really equalized the conditions for all these 3 to compete or you're only to use advantage of "unique" multi-core approach?

If you're to setup all three applications on a SINGLE core system (like mine old rig) and race them on a say 2Gb single test file (or 2Gb totaling files/folders in a container?) with their "fastest" settings like me, you'll only observe ICEECC simply is the slowest. Non-believers can repeat this with "equal conditions" (also same amount of memory reserved) to see it themselves that ICEECC is the slowest implementation among them simply relying on multi-core power claiming to be fastest implementation. What a joke???

I can't ignore the features easing users experiences within ICEECC and I believe ICEECC have the fastest execution with today's multi-core computing power. What I'm opposing is simply "False advertising" of the speed of implementation. Other 2 programs simply proves ICEECC can be faster per core. If either QuickPar or dvdisaster is to tap the power of multi-core, every user without experimenting is to see how fast per core others are...

I believe this post is to be followed by a post by the Site Admin(=ICEECC coder) simply stating "Use it or leave it". Yet I reserve the right to both complain and use ICEECC like the author of the program reserves his rights not to publish his code... Wink

Also as a note one unique feature of dvdisaster is to repair damaged file (can be chosen instead of intended ISO file) without the need for additional space like ICEECC or QuickPar does. This can be quite useful if you're to recover a DVD-9 size of file(s) without more free space...

Bye...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ICE Graphics
Site Admin


Joined: 31 Mar 2003
Posts: 430

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Fastest ECC??? You have to be kidding right??? Reply with quote

cr1t1c wrote:
Have you really equalized the conditions for all these 3 to compete or you're only to use advantage of "unique" multi-core approach?

All tests were executed in the same environment.

cr1t1c wrote:
If you're to setup all three applications on a SINGLE core system (like mine old rig) and race them on a say 2Gb single test file (or 2Gb totaling files/folders in a container?) with their "fastest" settings like me, you'll only observe ICEECC simply is the slowest.

All tests were made under AMD X2 and after some time under Intel Dual Core. We did not test ICE ECC under old (like Pentium-133) or exotic (like Transmeta) CPU. Moreover, ICE ECC use special optimization for working with RAM in the fastest way using modern CPU architecture. Using full RAM bandwidth of modern chipsets.

cr1t1c wrote:
What I'm opposing is simply "False advertising" of the speed of implementation. Other 2 programs simply proves ICEECC can be faster per core. If either QuickPar or dvdisaster is to tap the power of multi-core, every user without experimenting is to see how fast per core others are...

You did not told what CPU, chipset, motherboard, RAM and OS are you using.

cr1t1c wrote:
Also as a note one unique feature of dvdisaster is to repair damaged file (can be chosen instead of intended ISO file) without the need for additional space like ICEECC or QuickPar does.

Probably you did not understand how error recovery is working. DVDDisaster support very weak local recovery. 1MB of damaged data can make DVDDisaster recovered code useless. Even if there is 1GB recovered code made by DVDDisaster.

cr1t1c wrote:
This can be quite useful if you're to recover a DVD-9 size of file(s) without more free space...

Recovery without using additional space THEORETICALLY IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.ice-graphics.com Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group