Ok, explain to me...I took a 220MB system file and compressed it down to 28MB.
Obviously this is lossless as I can recover individual files from
within it that are things like extensions, fonts, etc.
I admit, JPEG, MPEG, etc. are lossful, but modems have been doing
v.42bis compression which is 4:1 on the fly for a long time now.
Granted, the speed is only 53k at best (although some faster network
equipment also uses a subset of v.42bis), so the time frame from
receiving to sending would be larger that you would get with
receiving to sending to local device like a tape drive.
I'm wondering if it would be possible for Retrospect to do some
software compression that may be slower, but would allow greater
inline compression. I would guess that the software compression
built into Retrospect is the same algorythem that hardware
compression drives use. By getting with a company like Alladin
Systems, it would seem like they could improve on that technology.
If Dantz did something like this, obviously having a choice of
Hardware compression or software compression would still be there,
but adding to the software compression may be 3 levels. Normal,
Better (slower), Best (slowest).
The speed of the compression would depend heavily on the speed of the
CPU doing the backups. So if I had my Dual 1Ghz Processor Alpha box
running NT doing backups, the best compression would be barely
noticeable performance hit.
I do think that if Dantz should at least talk to someone at Alladin about it.
>One (compound) word: Lossless
>The compression methods that you are lusting after introduce errors
>(artifacts) into the resulting decompressed data. This may be acceptable
>for sound, photos and video but to totally unacceptable for storage of
>system files, programs and most other data.
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.