I'd like to say that I am not knocking Retrospect in the very least.
This discussion on compression started by a feature suggestion.
Retrospect is the best backup software on the market. I say that
without hesitation because our department has tried at least 2 others
and they quite frankly suck in comparison.
My suggestion was _not_ to add software compression and get rid of no
compression, 2:1, or hardware compression options.
My suggestion was to add a feature that allowed greater compression
at the cost of speed, but allow people to have a choice.
I am very familiar with how modem compression, network compression,
and file compression works. When I was going through school, one of
our projects was to write a compression algorythem and compress a
file (yes, it was a text file) the best we could. With my limited
math background, I was only able to achieve compression down to 64%
of the original size of that file. Another person in the class was
able to get 48% on the same file. That was 16 years ago!
The reason I brought up modem and network compression is that those
two are streaming compressions. They take small chunks of data and
compress them. Achieving at best 4:1 compression, but more like 2:1
on average. While this is not an ideal compression scheme for
backups, it is something to build on. At the same time, I just don't
think that Dantz needs to put that much effort into it when there are
companies out there that already do compression.
I am surprised at the number of "Don't change the product at all"
message this is generating. I mean, why not have the option?
Putting a 4 cylinder engine in that car will save gas, but I lose the
speed of the V6. Let's not give people the option of putting a 4
cylinder engine in there.
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For urgent issues, please contact Dantz technical support directly at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or 925.253.3050.