Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Computer Learning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gottfried who wrote (47468)	8/26/2005 8:13:08 AM
From: jdx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110626

Interestingly, some compression allows for faster transfer since you are creating a smaller image. Here is some actual data from one of my systems. There are 4 compression levels . None = 12.56GB of data and takes 30 minutes. Normal = 7.51GB and takes 17 minutes. High = 6.57GB and takes 20 minutes. Max = 6.4GB and takes 50 minutes. So some compression seems like a good idea. Using Max compression it takes too long to perform the compression even tho it is transferring the smallest image.

To: Gottfried who wrote (47468)	8/26/2005 12:41:10 PM
From: Esteban	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110626

Gottfried, I compress my backup data even though I have lots of room on the backup hard drive. It's a 120g vs 40g for the primary. The reason is I like to have multiple backups. I never copy over the last backup I made. If something fails during backup, I might lose everything. I also keep 2 image backup files of OS and programs, replacing the oldest each time I make a new one. I have things archived on the backup drive as well. With compression I never have to worry about running low on space. Compressing backups is easy using the free SyncBack backup program. Since it just uses the OS zip functionality, it is not necessary to run the program to restore a file. Just drag and drop in Windows Explorer. The unzipping is transparent. Esteban