h a l f b a k e r y
The halfway house for at-risk ideas
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
or Create a new account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
This would be a way to save disk space. I propose a device that consists of two hard disks, disk A and B, and some sort of compression processor. When you save a file, the file goes onto Disk A and is queued for compression. You can still access it before compression, because it is on Disk A. Once it
is compressed, it goes to Disk B and is stored there. When you want to access it, it is decompressed. If it finds you are accessing certain files often, it moves them to Disk A so they can be accessed without compression.
Pros:
- more disk space for less money
- no dealing with compression programs
- behind the scenes
- compression is done by a dedicated processor, so your computer's performance is not affected, and it gets done faster
- interfaced like a regular drive
Cons:
- slower file access
- no easy way to estimate disk space remaining (physical bytes are different from compressed bytes)
Stacker
http://www.atarimag...98_Stacker_AT16.php
baked since before 1992. [gustavolacerda, Nov 08 2005]
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL.
E.g., http://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I would think that large hard disks are cheap enough now, that speed is more of a concern than space! |
|
| |
It depends on the kind of data. Also, frequently accessed data and programs are left uncompressed. |
|
| |
Windows does this if you turn it on. Doesn't need a second drive for it. Compresses and decompresses on the fly. |
|
| |
not very effective compression, though. I've tried it. I'm thinking a better algorithm, such as zip of 7z. The two disks are to preserve speed while still compressing. |
|
| |
Is the cost of (say) one 80Gb main drive
plus one (say) 1Gb intermediate drive
going to be less than the cost of (say)
one 160Gb drive? Are you going to get
a lot more than 2-fold compression
compared to current on-the-fly
methods? |
|
| |
Don't see the need for the second disk (or this sort of compression at all, as MikeO points out). |
|
| |
I meant more than 1 gb. It simply compresses the files that aren't used as often. Depending on what types of files you have, this could be very useful. |
|
| |
[waugs] with two drives, the compression could happen in the background, without slowing regular disc access. |
|
| |
You haven't indicated why a second drive is necessary for that. It would be faster in RAM. |
|
| |
The uncompressed drive is storage, too. With RAM, the data would be cleared when the computer is shut down. |
|
| |
Any info stored in RAM is written to the drive during the shut down process. |
|
| |
Better idea: just add the dedicated processor to a regular computer drive and make all the specially compressed files go into a hidden folder (even though I think Windows already does that.) |
|
| |
[waugs] Not true. Not unless you hibernate the computer.
[croissantz] See my view of Windows compression above. |
|
| |
Anybody else remember Drivespace and Doublespace? If my memory serves they were both DOS-era programs that compressed your entire drive. Maybe this still exists as what [bris] refers to. |
|
| |
Oh, what's this big ass file on my H: drive for? Don't need that taking up space... |
|
| |
Surely already well-baked by tape drives that do this by default. |
|
| |
Compression comes with a lot of problems, to do with data integrity, in my experience. Easier to install another 1 or 2 or 3 drives (you have 4 IDE slots unless you get tricky with a dual IDE system). 200GB drives are pretty cheap these days. Far simpler solution. |
|
| |
I have a file storage box with 7 x 200GB IDE drives in it. The drives cost less than a new machine. |
|
| |
We're in the time of divxes, mp3s, jpegs
and any kind of real-time format-
specific decompression...
I don't think such a system would free
more than 10-15% of disk space, and
given the risk+the resources needed, i'd
forget it. |
|
| |
right Etymon, dblspace.exe sure made
me realize what my data was worth
when I lost it multiple times in the early
90's. |
|
| |
I remember that and it was a bloody nightmare. Loads of things wouldn't run if you did it and if you had to rescue your data after Windows had gone plink, you were buggered. It also wore out the drive more quickly, so the chances are you would end up in that situation earlier than you would otherwise. It was awful and i'm deeply relieved it isn't needed any more. |
|
| |