For my PC/Elite Data, I compress everything. Part of that was back in the
old DOS days with smaller and more expensive optical disks available, I
wanted to save disk space. It also allowed me to put all files from one
day into one file named for the date (e.g. 020501.ZIP for today, February
5, 2001). My only caution is that I only make files that are less and
32MBytes, as the only time that I have had the files corrumpted is when the
files were larger than that. With large listmode files, this can be a
problem. Of course, I may just be paranoid about the 32MByte threshold,
and since I have just upgraded to Windows 98 from Windows 3.11 (yes, I was
in the dark ages for a while :-)), this might not be a problem.
My naming scheme allows me to find files quickly if I know the date they
were run on. I also have a database in case I have to search for the files.
Just my 2cents to this conversation. (Winzip, and PKZIP, which I use, are
both shareware and freely available for the PC, and I haven't investigated
the Mac software options yet.)
Doug
At 02:03 PM 2/1/01 -0800, Maciej Simm wrote:
> Since we recently discussed backups/CD writers etc, I thought I
>would share some of my observations with compression in regards to
>storage:
>
> *** EXAMPLES ***
>
> #1
>"january 2001 cytokines" folder: 1014 items, 334.7 MB on disk
> and after compression:
> january 2001 cytokines.zip : 1 item , 24.2 MB on disk
>
> #2
> "burst tests" folder: 1645 items, 593.1 MB on disk
> and after compression:
> burst tests.zip : 1 item , 227.7 MB on disk
>
>These are the extreme ranges of my results so far, showing a range of
>62% to 93% decrease in size.
>
>some of my flowjo workspaces shrunk from 2 megs to 30 kilobytes.
>
> *** PROS ***
>
>1. more cost effective storage
>2. more data accessible per volume.. ex one year fitting on one disc
>as opposed to three etc...
>3. compatibility - once zipped, files can be moved to PC's and stored
>that way and the contents of the zip file are still "mac"
>4. no buffer underrruns in CD-writing - a bunch of small files is
>much more likely to create buffer underrruns during burning process,
>esp. at high speeds (12, 16X)
>
> *** CONS ***
>1. in event of disk scratch - you loose more data, thus duplicates
>are a must
>2. depending on the speed of the computer, it takes some time to
>"decompress" the files (the above mentioned burst test folder took 5
>minutes do compress on a G3-400, it takes less time to decompress)
>
>
>if anyone else has something to add to the topic on compression feel
>free to post it on the group I'd be interested to learn new tricks.
>
>maciej
>
>
>
>
>
>=====
>`---------------------------------------------`
>| Maciej S. Simm | 525 E 68th Street |
>| Research Technician | Room N-805 |
>| Cornell Medical Center | Tel. 212.746.3428 |
>`---------------------------------------------`
>|www.cd4cd8.com | 917-734-6280 | AIM - XsimmX |
>`---------------------------------------------`
>
>__________________________________________________
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
>a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
{-----------------------------------------------------------------------}
Douglas Smoot
NIDDK-Navy Transplantation & Autoimmunity Branch
Naval Medical Research Center
AFRRI Building 46, Room 2415
8901 Wisconsin Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20889-5603
voice: 301-295-1843
fax: 301-295-6484
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:01:05 EST