Unzip confusion



  • Backed up a database at a client site:  ~7 GB

    Zipped it using Winzip: ~1.5 GB 

     Tried to unzip it back at the office and got this...




  •  You didn't accidentally append the database backup to 42.zip, did you?  Happens to me all the time.



  • @bstorer said:

    You didn't accidentally append the database backup to 42.zip, did you? 
     

    Well, I wouldn't put anything past our clients but that's not what happened this time.

    I did try to unzip it using Windows Compressed Folders - was that where I went wrong?



  • Ye Olde ZIP has a limit to, I don't remember, 4GB or 2GB uncompressed data size.

    Winzip is using its own proprietary zip64 extensions, which are of course used silently, with no incompatibility warning, and stored with .ZIP extension.

    Windows Compressed Folders probably assume standard 32-bit zip format, and read garbage from the zip64 header.



  • @bannedfromcoding said:

    Ye Olde ZIP has a limit to, I don't remember, 4GB or 2GB uncompressed data size.
    4GB for uncompressed size, compressed size, and total archive size.  But Windows versions pre-Vista had a 2GB limit, for reasons I'm not clear on.@bannedfromcoding said:
    Winzip is using its own proprietary zip64 extensions, which are of course used silently, with no incompatibility warning, and stored with .ZIP extension.
    This is all true, except the part about ZIP64 being proprietary.  WinZip, PKZIP (Yes, it still exists; shocking, I know.), and 7-Zip all support it, just to name a few.@bannedfromcoding said:
    Windows Compressed Folders probably assume standard 32-bit zip format, and read garbage from the zip64 header.
    I think you're probably right about this, which means the solution is to get a copy of 7-Zip.



  • Thanks for the info.

    Also, I'm glad I tried unzipping it with a different tool before splashing out on the extra 6PB of disk space.



  • @RTapeLoadingError said:

    Thanks for the info.

    Also, I'm glad I tried unzipping it with a different tool before splashing out on the extra 6PB of disk space.

    It's incredibly cheaper also!



  • @bstorer said:

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    Ye Olde ZIP has a limit to, I don't remember, 4GB or 2GB uncompressed data size.
    4GB for uncompressed size, compressed size, and total archive size.  But Windows versions pre-Vista had a 2GB limit, for reasons I'm not clear on.

    Using a signed number instead of unsigned for the size. Stupid, I know.

    @bstorer said:

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    Winzip is using its own proprietary zip64 extensions, which are of course used silently, with no incompatibility warning, and stored with .ZIP extension.
    This is all true, except the part about ZIP64 being proprietary.  WinZip, PKZIP (Yes, it still exists; shocking, I know.), and 7-Zip all support it, just to name a few.@bannedfromcoding said:
    Windows Compressed Folders probably assume standard 32-bit zip format, and read garbage from the zip64 header.
    I think you're probably right about this, which means the solution is to get a copy of 7-Zip.

    Windows Vista onwards actually support the Zip64 extensions, so this wouldn't be a problem if "bannedfromcoding" didn't have an ancient OS.



  • @Thief^ said:

    Windows Vista onwards actually support the Zip64 extensions, so this wouldn't be a problem if "bannedfromcoding" didn't have an ancient OS.

    Can't afford a new PC, can't afford OS upgrade, don't see any reason to pirate.
    Besides, regsvr32 /u zipfldr.dll .



  • @bannedfromcoding said:

    Can't afford a new PC, can't afford OS upgrade, don't see any reason to pirate.
     

    If your XP machine is completely in running order, there is precious little incentive to upgrade [the version number]



  • @Thief^ said:

    @bstorer said:

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    Ye Olde ZIP has a limit to, I don't remember, 4GB or 2GB uncompressed data size.
    4GB for uncompressed size, compressed size, and total archive size.  But Windows versions pre-Vista had a 2GB limit, for reasons I'm not clear on.

    Using a signed number instead of unsigned for the size. Stupid, I know.

    @bstorer said:

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    Winzip is using its own proprietary zip64 extensions, which are of course used silently, with no incompatibility warning, and stored with .ZIP extension.
    This is all true, except the part about ZIP64 being proprietary.  WinZip, PKZIP (Yes, it still exists; shocking, I know.), and 7-Zip all support it, just to name a few.@bannedfromcoding said:
    Windows Compressed Folders probably assume standard 32-bit zip format, and read garbage from the zip64 header.
    I think you're probably right about this, which means the solution is to get a copy of 7-Zip.

    Windows Vista onwards actually support the Zip64 extensions, so this wouldn't be a problem if "bannedfromcoding" didn't have an ancient OS.

    The screenshot does look like a default Vista window...



  • @bstorer said:

      But Windows versions pre-Vista had a 2GB limit, for reasons I'm not clear on.

    @bstorer said:

    I think you're probably right about this, which means the solution is to get a copy of 7-Zip.

    I had to make a minor change to a "SCORM-compliant eLearning packet" at a client site. These are just Zip files with a few XML files inside, plus all the HTML, JS, Flash, etc required to learn something. It was approximately 1.5GB in size, with all but about 10MB in a single subfolder. Using Windows (XP) Compressed folders it took an hour before we gave up waiting. The large folder wasn't too slow, but each of the files in the root of the zip file seemed to take several minutes to add. Luckily I had 7-zip on my laptop (for some reason sourceforge was blocked, so we couldn't download it) and it look less time to copy the data to a USB stick, use 7-zip on my 5-year-old laptop and transfer it back. Hooray for XP!

    (The original requirement for this SCORM thingy (different qualities of video) would have made it over 4GB: the LMS this was going into didn't even support SCORM 2004 so there'd be no way it could support ZIP64!)



  • @Thief^ said:

    @bstorer said:

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    Ye Olde ZIP has a limit to, I don't remember, 4GB or 2GB uncompressed data size.
    4GB for uncompressed size, compressed size, and total archive size.  But Windows versions pre-Vista had a 2GB limit, for reasons I'm not clear on.

    Using a signed number instead of unsigned for the size. Stupid, I know.

    I figured as much, but it still doesn't explain why.@Thief^ said:
    Windows Vista onwards actually support the Zip64 extensions, so this wouldn't be a problem if "bannedfromcoding" didn't have an ancient OS.
      Is this actually the case?  I know Wikipedia says so, but there's no citation and a quick Google check didn't turn up any definitive proof.  I have neither the OS handy (read: within arm's reach) nor the inclination to test it.



  • @bstorer said:

    I have neither the OS handy (read: within arm's reach) nor the inclination to test it.



  •  You know what? I've actually seen this (or a similar) message before aswell. In my case, it was caused by a corrupted zip file. I found it quite funny at the time, "You need 5.99PB..." lol



  • Women get confused when I unzip too.  Don't worry, they'll get over it.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Women get confused when I unzip too.  Don't worry, they'll get over it.

    "Is that a really small penis or a really average-sized clitoris?  And what's with the 'Mom' tattoo?"



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And what's with the 'Mom' tattoo?"
    What, you didn't name yours?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    Women get confused when I unzip too.  Don't worry, they'll get over it.

    "Is that a really small penis or a really average-sized clitoris
    Ask Buck Angel?



  • @PJH said:

    Ask Buck Angel?
     

    What the fuck is a buick angel?



  • @bstorer said:

    @Thief^ said:

    Windows Vista onwards actually support the Zip64 extensions, so this wouldn't be a problem if "bannedfromcoding" didn't have an ancient OS.
      Is this actually the case?  I know Wikipedia says so, but there's no citation and a quick Google check didn't turn up any definitive proof.  I have neither the OS handy (read: within arm's reach) nor the inclination to test it.

    Well, you could try looking at the KB article linked in this very thread ...



  • @Iago said:

    @bstorer said:

    @Thief^ said:

    Windows Vista onwards actually support the Zip64 extensions, so this wouldn't be a problem if "bannedfromcoding" didn't have an ancient OS.
      Is this actually the case?  I know Wikipedia says so, but there's no citation and a quick Google check didn't turn up any definitive proof.  I have neither the OS handy (read: within arm's reach) nor the inclination to test it.

    Well, you could try looking at the KB article linked in this very thread ...
    I linked to that article, shitfucker; don't you think I read it?  It says that Vista and above support DEFLATE64, but says nothing about ZIP64.  They're not the same thing.



  • @dhromed said:

    @PJH said:

    Ask Buck Angel?
     

    What the fuck is a buick angel?

    Under the assumption you're being serious, it's Buck, not buick, and they're a person.


  • @PJH said:

    Under the assumption you're being serious, it's Buck, not buick, and they're a person.
     

    I was inserious, and my question still stands!



  • @PJH said:

    , it's Buck, not buick, and they're a person.
     

    My name's Buck and I like to What-the-fuck!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.