From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon May 1 10:49:44 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA01632 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 1995 10:49:44 -0700 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA01626 for ; Mon, 1 May 1995 10:49:44 -0700 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id KAA03641; Mon, 1 May 1995 10:49:32 -0700 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199505011749.KAA03641@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: Compress dumps? To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 10:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Cc: obrien@leonardo.net, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <9505011729.AA07524@cs.weber.edu> from "Terry Lambert" at May 1, 95 11:29:46 am Content-Type: text Content-Length: 944 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Just a thought, but has anyone given any thought to running the > > "dump" data stream through 'gzip' on its way to the tape, so that we > > don't have to buy quite as many QIC-80 tapes? Sort of like the regular > > CMS 'tape' program does under DOS/Windows? > > I always want to cry when someone suggests stream compression on > dump formats. Terry, In my 10+ years in computing, I have >once< had a chance to restore from a damaged media which were still partially readable. Comparing that to how many tapes I've written, streams based compression is a very low risk thing to do to save money. How about this observation btw: If I can compress at least 3:1, I can make two copies, and still save 33% on media... (Assuming you fill them of course). -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'