Folder Compression Query 1

[Diffy1]

Hi

Does anyone have any views or experience of compressing files and folders on Windows 2003 file and print server (via folders advances attributes). Its seems an ideal way of saving on disk space but I'm wondering if there will be any performance hit. Data drive on Server is (hardware) Raid 5 and data is around 500Gb in size.

I can’t really find much in the way of information on the subject.

Cheers

 

[ntinlin]

Stats are almost impossible to come by because it all depends.

But it really depends on two things.
1. Compressibility of the data
2. How much that data is accessed

1. It's pointless trying to compress folders full of JPG's or MPG's, PST's etc. because they are already compressed or don't have a decent compression ratio. But if you have TIF's, doc's, xls's etc. then you can make a reasonably significant space saving.
2. It's pointless compressing to save disk space if you then hammer the server and disks constantly uncompressing files for users. So best to do it for older or less used files where possible.

NB NB NB
Make sure if you do use compression that you have enough backup capacity for all your files in an UNCOMPRESSED format. Most tape drives obviously do hardware compression but the ratio that it gets may be better or worse than the MS software compression. Never believe the 2:1 that manufacturers usually claim. Check your tape log to see how much space is left at the end of each backup.

Neill

 

[wallst32]

Yes of course there is a performance hit. The server must compress and decompress files as they are accessed. Disk space is so cheap these days, making this an unpopular alternative.

 

[Diffy1]

Thanks Guys. Problem is some directories contain such a broad range of files - some that compress and some don’t. So I would probably look to compress from the folder level (even if it does mean compressing files that wont compress any further). A test folder was 25Gb and has now dropped down to 20Gb so it’s a good return.

Cheers