J
Jason
Would there be anything to be gained by (if it's even possible) setting
up Windows system folders to compress their content?
up Windows system folders to compress their content?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
Jason
Would there be anything to be gained by (if it's even possible) setting
up Windows system folders to compress their content?
The folder that's particularly interesting is c:\windows\installer, which
grows and is now > 8GB on my system.
J
John Williamson
Jason said:The folder that's particularly interesting is c:\windows\installer, which
grows and is now > 8GB on my system.
It depends on the relative speeds of your HD and CPU. On one machine I
run with a very slow system drive, time saved by reading fewer bytes
from disc is more than is wasted by using CPU cycles to decompress said
bytes. As a result, the machine seems faster when the HD is compressed.
I've not run any benchmarks, though, and I only run the system drive
compressed as it's a 4 Gigabyte flash drive holding XP.
Then again, said machine runs Linux a lot faster....
A
Auric__
John said:It depends on the relative speeds of your HD and CPU. On one machine I
run with a very slow system drive, time saved by reading fewer bytes
from disc is more than is wasted by using CPU cycles to decompress said
bytes. As a result, the machine seems faster when the HD is compressed.
I've not run any benchmarks, though, and I only run the system drive
compressed as it's a 4 Gigabyte flash drive holding XP.
Then again, said machine runs Linux a lot faster....
My info may be out of date, or completely incorrect, but ISTR reading that
NTFS cojmpression leads to more rapid file fragmentation, due to how the
system handles decompressing those files.
FWIW, I wouldn't compress actual system files. Pretty much any file in
\Windows or \Windows\System32. (The Windows\installer directory, I myself
keep compressed, along with Windows\inf.)
J
Jason
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:43:00 +0100 "John Williamson"
Well, the machine and disks are very fast. zip-style compression is very
quick - noticeable? dunno (yet).
Jason
It depends on the relative speeds of your HD and CPU. On one machine I
run with a very slow system drive, time saved by reading fewer bytes
from disc is more than is wasted by using CPU cycles to decompress said
bytes. As a result, the machine seems faster when the HD is compressed.
I've not run any benchmarks, though, and I only run the system drive
compressed as it's a 4 Gigabyte flash drive holding XP.
Then again, said machine runs Linux a lot faster....
Well, the machine and disks are very fast. zip-style compression is very
quick - noticeable? dunno (yet).
Jason
J
Jason
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:46:26 +0000 (UTC) "Auric__"
I added another post, which hasn't shown up for some reason, in which I
modified my question and proposed limiting my compression experiment to
only the Installer directory (files there amount to > 8GB!). Since you
have done this, I feel safe trying it. Inf is also a good candidate.
I have to think about the fragmentation issue. Surely there will be a lot
of fragmentation initially, as all the files get rewritten. Thereafter,
I'd imagine that they are simply decompressed directly into memory.
Thanks!
My info may be out of date, or completely incorrect, but ISTR reading that
NTFS cojmpression leads to more rapid file fragmentation, due to how the
system handles decompressing those files.
FWIW, I wouldn't compress actual system files. Pretty much any file in
\Windows or \Windows\System32. (The Windows\installer directory, I myself
keep compressed, along with Windows\inf.)
I added another post, which hasn't shown up for some reason, in which I
modified my question and proposed limiting my compression experiment to
only the Installer directory (files there amount to > 8GB!). Since you
have done this, I feel safe trying it. Inf is also a good candidate.
I have to think about the fragmentation issue. Surely there will be a lot
of fragmentation initially, as all the files get rewritten. Thereafter,
I'd imagine that they are simply decompressed directly into memory.
Thanks!
A
Auric__
Jason said:On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:46:26 +0000 (UTC) "Auric__"
I added another post, which hasn't shown up for some reason, in which I
modified my question and proposed limiting my compression experiment to
only the Installer directory (files there amount to > 8GB!). Since you
have done this, I feel safe trying it. Inf is also a good candidate.
I have to think about the fragmentation issue. Surely there will be a
lot of fragmentation initially, as all the files get rewritten.
Thereafter, I'd imagine that they are simply decompressed directly into
memory.
I don't know; it's been a *very* long time (15+ years) since I gave it any
thought, and my memory could be completely incorrect.
There are very few files that aren't safe to compress -- things like boot
files -- but there are many files where it's not always wise to compress
them. Judicious googling would probably help.
J
JJ
My info may be out of date, or completely incorrect, but ISTR reading that
NTFS cojmpression leads to more rapid file fragmentation, due to how the
system handles decompressing those files.
Compressing/decompressing a file DOES caused it to be fragmented. But once
it's defragmented, when read, the decompression is done in memory only. The
physical file in the disk will still be in compressed form.