How safe is it to use Win XP's disk compression?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave Rado
  • Start date Start date
D

Dave Rado

I'm running short of disk space and can't afford a new laptop hard disk at
present. Is Microsoft's disk compression utility safe? If not, is there a
third party one that is?

Regards

Dave
 
Dave Rado said:
I'm running short of disk space and can't afford a new laptop hard disk at
present. Is Microsoft's disk compression utility safe? If not, is there a
third party one that is?

Regards

Dave
Click to expand...

If you're using the NTFS filesystem,.
it's extraordinarily safe. Been around a very
long time, all the bugs have likely been worked
out. Have no problems whatsoever with it.

If you're on FAT 32, I can't speak to that.

NTFS is inherently a more robust file system
that FAT32-if you have qualms regarding compression,
you may want to consider converting to it
it you're not using it already.

However, you may not be able to if you're short
on free disk space-the conversion utility needs quite a big
chunk to do its work.
 
then again, NTFS compression is an 'in place' technique, which basically
means put the file on disk (original size) and *then* compress it.
this may contribute to your diskfiles becoming fragmented more rapidly.
just a consideration
 
Thanks all.

Regards

Dave


| then again, NTFS compression is an 'in place' technique, which basically
| means put the file on disk (original size) and *then* compress it.
| this may contribute to your diskfiles becoming fragmented more rapidly.
| just a consideration
|
| | >
| > | > > I'm running short of disk space and can't afford a new laptop hard
disk
| at
| > > present. Is Microsoft's disk compression utility safe? If not, is
there
| a
| > > third party one that is?
| > >
| > > Regards
| > >
| > > Dave
| > >
| > >
| >
| > If you're using the NTFS filesystem,.
| > it's extraordinarily safe. Been around a very
| > long time, all the bugs have likely been worked
| > out. Have no problems whatsoever with it.
| >
| > If you're on FAT 32, I can't speak to that.
| >
| > NTFS is inherently a more robust file system
| > that FAT32-if you have qualms regarding compression,
| > you may want to consider converting to it
| > it you're not using it already.
| >
| > However, you may not be able to if you're short
| > on free disk space-the conversion utility needs quite a big
| > chunk to do its work.
| >
| >
|
|
 
BTW:

| However, you may not be able to if you're short
| on free disk space-the conversion utility needs quite a big
| chunk to do its work.

Easy to get round: backup, delete, compress the drive, restore. Or zip up as
much as possible, delete unzipped versions of the zipped files, compress the
drive, restore. :-)

Regards

Dave
 
BTW:

| then again, NTFS compression is an 'in place' technique, which basically
| means put the file on disk (original size) and *then* compress it.
| this may contribute to your diskfiles becoming fragmented more rapidly.
| just a consideration

I suspect not as rapidly as on an uncompressed drive that is nearly full.
:-)

Regards

Dave
 
BTW


Dave Rado said:
BTW:

| However, you may not be able to if you're short
| on free disk space-the conversion utility needs quite a big
| chunk to do its work.

Easy to get round: backup, delete, compress the drive, restore.
Click to expand...

Not so, because 'compression' is just an 'attribute' of the files and
folders and not a characteristic of the drive.
So upon restore your files will be written to the disk in uncompressed form
and then, as I already said, compressed 'in place'.
Or zip up as
Click to expand...
much as possible, delete unzipped versions of the zipped files, compress the
drive, restore. :-)
Click to expand...

That will work

cheers
george
 
Hi George

| > | However, you may not be able to if you're short
| > | on free disk space-the conversion utility needs quite a big
| > | chunk to do its work.
| >
| > Easy to get round: backup, delete, compress the drive, restore.
|
| Not so, because 'compression' is just an 'attribute' of the files and
| folders and not a characteristic of the drive.
| So upon restore your files will be written to the disk in uncompressed
form
| and then, as I already said, compressed 'in place'.

I see what you mean, but presumably it would work if you only restored a few
folders at a time rather the whole lot at once?

Regards

Dave
 
'In theory' even with few at the time you would still end up with small
portions of free space in between the few files just restored/compressed.
So you might just as well restore the lot, indicate compress at root level
(+subfolders) and follow with a defrag
Mind you, why bother.
disk space being at prices it is these days, why incurr the extra process
overhead when accessing the files and writing/modifying them ('cuz it will
decompress n read and compress on write all the time).
If you really want to gain smoe space, just compress the stuff that's on
disk but rarely used.
Like in everyday life, whenever you gain someting somewhere, you're bound to
'pay for it' somewhere else.
So you gain storage space and pay in performance.
Is that noticable?
Depends on the strength of you machine.
It definitely is 'measurable'.

just my take on it.

george
 
Back
Top