Linux and data storage?

[Chuck Hallenbeck]

Karen,

The choice of whether to compress or not is your choice, of course, but
you should know that the risk you are worried about is virtually
non-existent in most Linux users view. There is another downside to
transferring your data without compression. You will be transferring two
or three times as much data as you would if compressed, it will
therefore take two or three times as long, and will be two or three
times more likely to be encounter transmission errors, system
interruptions, and other acts of God. Those risks are small too, nearly
as small as compression/decompression failures. But the choice is yours,
and either way it will work.

Chuck

non-

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Karen Lewellen wrote:

> I will have no problem transferring the data as i desire.   I have 200 gb of 
> storage over there,  another 1.8 or so is not going to be noticed. Besides i 
> hope it will be temporary with my taking it down to my own system at some 
> point.
>
> If janina is to be believed it is my system, I have two of them remember?
> I plan to inform them that the data is going to be transfered, and as they 
> have a rather simple idea of   the shell setup, light years behind 
> shellworld,  transferring the data as i wish is what I pay for in a sense.
> The risk is any of the data not being compressed properly, a chance with any 
> such program, and one I choose not to take
> yes the data is still here....now, but it might not have been very easily 
> indeed.
> Karen
>
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Luke Davis wrote:
>
>> You forget what tar is.  It adds everything together, so it compresses far 
>> better, than any of it would individually.
>> For example, a gig of text, and maybe a third of binary data, can compress 
>> down to about 350 MB.
>> 
>> Now, keep in mind the system: does Shellworld admin, want you moving a Gig 
>> of data across its connection, when there is a choice to compress it into 
>> a few hundred MB?
>> 
>> Yes, it is your data, but it is not your system.
>> 
>> You still haven't explained what the risk is.  Additionally, it is not as 
>> if the original data was not still there.
>> 
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>> 
>>> Much of this is music materials and the like which do not compress well 
>>> when using those programs  as I have tried.
>>> I do not want to chance it.
>>> Call me a chicken if you wish but it is my data.  Will the methods 
>>> suggested do this, no compression involved?
>>> Karen
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Luke Davis wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I have no intention of risking a zip of any of these files, nor do i 
>>>>> want to
>>>> 
>>>> Risking a zip?  What does that mean?  Where is the risk?  Gnu Zip (not 
>>>> PK Zip), and Bzip2, are highly stable formats.
>>>> Tar is an archiving method used for decades on unix.  In fact, Linux 
>>>> uses bzip2 as its kernel format these days.
>>>> 
>>>> This exact method is how many of us who backup shellworld user data, 
>>>> do it, on a regular basis--tar archived into bzip, or gzip.
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Speakup mailing list
>>>> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
>>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speakup mailing list
>>> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
>>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

-- 
The Moon is Full
Home page at http://www.mhcable.com/~chuckh
Speakfreely address 24.105.197.112:2074