Compression & Performance

"Mac" <mac@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:15180FF6-DB40-4535-99CA-F99E47275CB1@microsoft.com...

> Cross post to general.
>

>> Any thoughts on what kind of overall performance hit I will take (if any)
>> were I to make my 80GB C:\ drive compressed via NTFS?
>>
>> Factors - disk seek time, expansion/compression time, cpu overhead, RAM
>> usage, fragmentation, etc?

>
>

Not done any extensive research into this , but I tried a couple of
experiments with this with Vista a while back- noticed a slight slowdown the
first time, but no major slow down the second. Nothing conclusive.

I wouldn't personally advise it with your system partition, though, unless
you're majorly short of space. Compress other partitions containing data
etc, sure.


--
Jon

I'm sort of thinking it won't make much difference...

"Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
news:uZIqIePuHHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>
> "Mac" <mac@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:15180FF6-DB40-4535-99CA-F99E47275CB1@microsoft.com...

>> Cross post to general.
>>

>>> Any thoughts on what kind of overall performance hit I will take (if
>>> any) were I to make my 80GB C:\ drive compressed via NTFS?
>>>
>>> Factors - disk seek time, expansion/compression time, cpu overhead, RAM
>>> usage, fragmentation, etc?

>>
>>

>
>
> Not done any extensive research into this , but I tried a couple of
> experiments with this with Vista a while back- noticed a slight slowdown
> the first time, but no major slow down the second. Nothing conclusive.
>
> I wouldn't personally advise it with your system partition, though, unless
> you're majorly short of space. Compress other partitions containing data
> etc, sure.
>
>
> --
> Jon
>
>

worse thing is after compressing it and you add some more stuff. you will then find there is not enough disk space to UNCOMPRESS.
better to buy a larger hard drive.

for sure there is going to be a performance hit. how much do not have a clue. have never compressed a disk.
would estimate 5-10%.



mikeyhsd@comcast.net



"Mac" <mac@nospam.com> wrote in message news:4DE43C3A-8614-4808-879B-CF9EC92F294D@microsoft.com...
Any thoughts on what kind of overall performance hit I will take (if any)
were I to make my 80GB C:\ drive compressed via NTFS?

Factors - disk seek time, expansion/compression time, cpu overhead, RAM
usage, fragmentation, etc?

"Mac" <mac@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:30C05AA5-3CB2-4162-83E0-3F1591F6086F@microsoft.com...

> I'm sort of thinking it won't make much difference...
>
> "Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
> news:uZIqIePuHHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>
>> "Mac" <mac@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:15180FF6-DB40-4535-99CA-F99E47275CB1@microsoft.com...

>>> Cross post to general.
>>>
>>>> Any thoughts on what kind of overall performance hit I will take (if
>>>> any) were I to make my 80GB C:\ drive compressed via NTFS?
>>>>
>>>> Factors - disk seek time, expansion/compression time, cpu overhead, RAM
>>>> usage, fragmentation, etc?
>>>
>>>

>>
>>
>> Not done any extensive research into this , but I tried a couple of
>> experiments with this with Vista a while back- noticed a slight slowdown
>> the first time, but no major slow down the second. Nothing conclusive.
>>
>> I wouldn't personally advise it with your system partition, though,
>> unless you're majorly short of space. Compress other partitions
>> containing data etc, sure.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jon
>>
>>

A pretty much pointless exercise to compress your drive. Performance hit
would probably be noticeable indeed. I may be wrong but stuff would need to
be uncompressed to use anyway.

You would also increase your overheads with all the work it would have to
do.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

--
Can't think of a sig at the moment.
Read this instead.

Mac wrote:

> Cross post to general.
>

>> Any thoughts on what kind of overall performance hit I will take (if
>> any) were I to make my 80GB C:\ drive compressed via NTFS?
>>
>> Factors - disk seek time, expansion/compression time, cpu overhead,
>> RAM usage, fragmentation, etc?

There's no hard and fast rule. Sometimes processing compressed records is
way faster than fooling with the raw records. Sometimes the reverse.

Your best bet is a timed experiment for your application.