TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Re[2]: Query: stuffed/zipped generic term From:Matt Ion <soundy -at- ROGERS -dot- WAVE -dot- CA> Date:Thu, 7 Aug 1997 16:52:55 -0800
On Thu, 7 Aug 1997 08:22:50 -0500, Walker, Arlen P wrote:
> I've seen only one disk-compression system that operated strictly on
> an individual-files basis: ZipStream for OS/2.
>
>Must be because you've spent so much time holed up on OS/2.
That could be. I didn't say others didn't exist, only that I've only
seen the one. :-)
> The true beauty of this type of system is that it works on the files
> themselves, rather than the disk, so the type of file system in use
> becomes irrelevant.
>
>And there are two main troubles: Since the decompression happens at OS
>level rather than disc driver level there is more opportunity for things to
>interfere with the compression/decompression operation.
Well, assuming you have a task-switching, cooperative-multitasking, or
lousy-at-timeslicing OS. ZipStream, at least, installs as just another
Installable File System (IFS) in OS/2, the same as HPFS, TVFS, etc.
>And, since all disc
>storage systems have a minimum blocksize, it can lead to a greater waste of
>disc space than driver-level compression, depending upon the size of the
>file.
Well, I doubt you'd have a GREATER waste of space by compressing files,
even using FAT16 on a 2GB disk. After all, if you can shrink a 34k
file even by a measly 10%, it will then take up only one 32k cluster,
instead of two, effectively reducing USED space by 50%. This becomes
less an issue under filesystems such as HPFS, which use disk sectors
(512b) directly.
>To get back to "archive" vs "compress:" An archive collects multiple files
>together into one file for an implied destiny of storage off-line. (The "t"
>in "tar" stands for "tape.")
"tape archival and recovery" or something like that, isn't it?
Your friend and mine,
Matt
<insert standard disclaimer here>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
