Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi All,
Can I compress my C:\ drive (system drive) and keep my system stable with
the compress C:\? I am running with low disk space on C:\.
My OS : Windows XP Pro SP2 running MASP and NAV2005.
Thanks
yakis

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Certainly. But don't compress the boot files in C:\ as there is no uncompress available untill they load. So you won't be able to boot if you do.

Perhaps you should use Disk Cleanup's Compress Old Files which will compress files not used in last two months. If you have more than one partition move the swap file to where you have space. Disable hibernation if you don't use it. Reduce size of Temporary Internet Files as it is probably set to a size far too big (which means it stops working as well) to 20 or so Mbyte (and do it for each user).
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archive [...] 01075.html
=================================================
"yakis" <yakisGenghis@empire.com> wrote in message news:42e36577$0$60261$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Hi All,
> Can I compress my C:\ drive (system drive) and keep my system stable with
> the compress C:\? I am running with low disk space on C:\.
> My OS : Windows XP Pro SP2 running MASP and NAV2005.
> Thanks
> yakis
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Don't compress the drive.
Entire drivecompression went out with Stacker in 96 becase decomression adn
compression happens fo every file used and take CPU time.
C: typically holds your OS, so compressing this is a uge performance hit..

Hardrives are cheap enough, and a better solution.

"yakis" <yakisGenghis@empire.com> wrote in message
news:42e36577$0$60261$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Hi All,
> Can I compress my C:\ drive (system drive) and keep my system stable with
> the compress C:\? I am running with low disk space on C:\.
> My OS : Windows XP Pro SP2 running MASP and NAV2005.
> Thanks
> yakis
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Yeah, that's what I thought, just wanted to have some confirmation, thank
you both for your kind help.
Cheers,
yakis


"Manny Borges" <manny_borges@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ApcQqDkFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Don't compress the drive.
> Entire drivecompression went out with Stacker in 96 becase decomression
> adn compression happens fo every file used and take CPU time.
> C: typically holds your OS, so compressing this is a uge performance hit..
>
> Hardrives are cheap enough, and a better solution.
>
> "yakis" <yakisGenghis@empire.com> wrote in message
> news:42e36577$0$60261$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> Hi All,
>> Can I compress my C:\ drive (system drive) and keep my system stable with
>> the compress C:\? I am running with low disk space on C:\.
>> My OS : Windows XP Pro SP2 running MASP and NAV2005.
>> Thanks
>> yakis
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <42e36577$0$60261$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
yakis <yakisGenghis@empire.com> wrote:
>Hi All,
>Can I compress my C:\ drive (system drive) and keep my system stable with
>the compress C:\? I am running with low disk space on C:\.
>My OS : Windows XP Pro SP2 running MASP and NAV2005.
>Thanks
>yakis
>
>


I've done it to hundreds of systems circa NT4 and never had a problem.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:%23ApcQqDkFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
Manny Borges <manny_borges@hotmail.com> typed:

> Don't compress the drive.
> Entire drivecompression went out with Stacker in 96 becase
> decomression adn compression happens fo every file used and
> take CPU
> time. C: typically holds your OS, so compressing this is a uge
> performance
> hit..


Although it takes CPU time to compress and uncompress the files,
on the other hand the compressed files are smaller and take less
time to read and write. So there's a tradeoff. Which of the two
factors is more significant depends on the realtive speeds of the
CPU and disk drive, but on most modern systems, it's a near wash,
and there isn't a big difference either way.

I would never choose to compress a drive if I had any reasonable
choice, but for an entirely different reason. All the files on a
compressed drive are essentially in a single file and if anything
happens to that file (either hardware or software corruption),
*all* its contents are lost. That's too big a risk for me.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


>
> Hardrives are cheap enough, and a better solution.
>
> "yakis" <yakisGenghis@empire.com> wrote in message
> news:42e36577$0$60261$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> Hi All,
>> Can I compress my C:\ drive (system drive) and keep my system
>> stable
>> with the compress C:\? I am running with low disk space on
>> C:\.
>> My OS : Windows XP Pro SP2 running MASP and NAV2005.
>> Thanks
>> yakis

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

The small compressed files are faster to read is a common misconception.

The file is read, uncompressed, and then is typically written back in its
full size to the swap file while using it. So you are actually reading and
writing more than before.

Another misconception is that your files WILL compress.
Many file formats that take large amounts of space are already compressed.
MP3 Mpeg AVI etc...
In fact compressing them can actually make them grow.
I once ran hard compression on 3.2 GBs of MPEGS. Apox 250 files of a tech
conferance. After 2 hours of proccessing I gained a whopping 120 MBs of
space.

Compression is really only useful on a file or folder level basis and on
files that take compression well, like txt, doc, ppt etc....

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:ebA5qxIkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> In news:%23ApcQqDkFHA.2916@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
> Manny Borges <manny_borges@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>> Don't compress the drive.
>> Entire drivecompression went out with Stacker in 96 becase
>> decomression adn compression happens fo every file used and take CPU
>> time. C: typically holds your OS, so compressing this is a uge
>> performance
>> hit..
>
>
> Although it takes CPU time to compress and uncompress the files, on the
> other hand the compressed files are smaller and take less time to read and
> write. So there's a tradeoff. Which of the two factors is more significant
> depends on the realtive speeds of the CPU and disk drive, but on most
> modern systems, it's a near wash, and there isn't a big difference either
> way.
>
> I would never choose to compress a drive if I had any reasonable choice,
> but for an entirely different reason. All the files on a compressed drive
> are essentially in a single file and if anything happens to that file
> (either hardware or software corruption), *all* its contents are lost.
> That's too big a risk for me.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>>
>> Hardrives are cheap enough, and a better solution.
>>
>> "yakis" <yakisGenghis@empire.com> wrote in message
>> news:42e36577$0$60261$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl...
>>> Hi All,
>>> Can I compress my C:\ drive (system drive) and keep my system stable
>>> with the compress C:\? I am running with low disk space on C:\.
>>> My OS : Windows XP Pro SP2 running MASP and NAV2005.
>>> Thanks
>>> yakis
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

So you used doublespace, drivespace or Stacker.

So you must have run into the issue that when a drive is uncompressed during
backup or just for fun, the entire drive contents becomes corrupted if one
of the files decompressed exceeds the whole drives actual storage
limitation? Typical on a worksation or server that utilized huge text files.
Like a system holding old school logon scripts.

The first time I had that happen to me and I lost a 420MB drives data (don't
laugh, that was huge drive then) was the last time.

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
newsc012g$j0o$1@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <42e36577$0$60261$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> yakis <yakisGenghis@empire.com> wrote:
>>Hi All,
>>Can I compress my C:\ drive (system drive) and keep my system stable with
>>the compress C:\? I am running with low disk space on C:\.
>>My OS : Windows XP Pro SP2 running MASP and NAV2005.
>>Thanks
>>yakis
>>
>>
>
>
> I've done it to hundreds of systems circa NT4 and never had a problem.
>
>
> --
> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
>
> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <uhiCTWKkFHA.3448@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
Manny Borges <manny_borges@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The small compressed files are faster to read is a common misconception.
>
>The file is read, uncompressed, and then is typically written back in its
>full size to the swap file while using it. So you are actually reading and
>writing more than before.

I don't think you are talking about NTFS.

NTFS compression works fine. As someone else posted, it's probably to
uncompress ntldr and the other boot files in the boot partition root.

How much you get out of deppents on your data.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.