NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/sys/ibm/pc/misc/15854

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-16 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!airgun!airgun.wg.waii.com!dla
From: [e-mail] (Doug Acker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Stacker 3.0 Questions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:12:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: western geophysical exploration products
Lines: 98
Nntp-Posting-Host: se05.wg2.waii.com
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 15 Dec 92 10:42:28 GMT

>>>>> On 15 Dec 92 10:42:28 GMT, [e-mail] said:

    lauusitalo> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Benedict Ducharme) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C Landauer) writes:
>>
>>I am considering buying Stacker 3.0 as my 40MB hard drive is almost full.
>>I would like to ask a couple questions to those who have used this product.
>>
>>1.  What improvements were made from version 2.0?
>>
>>2.  Has anyone encountered any bugs?
>>
>>3.  Are there any programs that don't work with it?
>>
>>4.  To anyone using it with a 40MB hard drive:  How much space did it add?
>>
>>Thanx in advance!
>>Merry Xmas!
>>
>>Mike Landauer
>>[e-mail]
>>
> in addition I was wondering if, and how much Stacker affects the programs
> that are running.  Does it slow it down,
>
> Also, when you are storing to a tape backup, say a Colorado 250 Jumbo,
> how is the data saved.  If I originally have a 160 meg drive, and
> Stack it, will I be able to backup the "320 Megs" of the 160
> drive.
>
> Thank you
> [e-mail]

    lauusitalo> People seem to have little misunderstands about stacker. It uses one huge
    lauusitalo> file containing all files in packed format. When there is need for file
    lauusitalo> stacker unpacks it from that file. This happens automatically and you
    lauusitalo> can not notice it. It does not pack files like PKlite and such exe packers.
    lauusitalo> They affect one file at time so to say. If you compress your files using
    lauusitalo> PKZIP or PKLite or any other "conventional" compress program you affect
    lauusitalo> one file at time. These you can backup to tape individually and you can
    lauusitalo> save tape space. But if you copy stacked files to tape they take just
    lauusitalo> as much tape space as normally without stacker. You have to compress them
    lauusitalo> separately by some program to save space. You could backup that huge
    lauusitalo> stackvol file. But restoring individual files would be impossible.
    lauusitalo> I thought that these tape backup programs had their own compress routines.

    lauusitalo> I do not know if there is possibility to stack tape drive acting like
    lauusitalo> disk drive. But is there any need for that?

    lauusitalo> Speed is one thing people often complain about stacker. I am not sure
    lauusitalo> if these people have ever used stacker. Slow harddrives like
    lauusitalo> old Seagates >28ms will be quicker when using stacker. Because HD does
    lauusitalo> not have to make so many rotations and seeks to find program which is
    lauusitalo> now located in smaller area. When using fast disks this is not same.
    lauusitalo> It might be faster without stacker but little smaller also.
    lauusitalo> If the speed is must then consider that HW option. Although bigger and
    lauusitalo> faster HD might be cheaper. Tough choice. Anyway you will add that
    lauusitalo> stacker later when your bigger HD comes to 99% full. :)

    lauusitalo> Stacker adds as much space as you want. You can change that scaling number
    lauusitalo> to whatever you want. But this is only part of the truth. This is only
    lauusitalo> used to show free space numbers and has nothing (or very little) to do
    lauusitalo> with real free space.

    lauusitalo> If you have disk full of zips then there is no need or use for stacker. You
    lauusitalo> could not get any more space. But if you have normal exe and txt stuff then
    lauusitalo> adding stacker increases disk capacity to about 1.5 times old capacity.
    lauusitalo> So you could get about 60 MB real storage capacity. May be even 80 MB
    lauusitalo> if you have "loose" files.

    lauusitalo> If you were asking about improvements to 2.0 then look previous postings
    lauusitalo> where was a notify about these. Someone said that speed was better but
    lauusitalo> compress ratio has not changed (at least substantionally).

    lauusitalo> I have used stacker 2.0 for quite a long time and have had almost no
    lauusitalo> problem with it. AOTP had some sort of problems but they are solved.
    lauusitalo> Mostly it is because some program behaves like it shouldn't an I guess
    lauusitalo> with these programs problems can arise with plain DOS.

    lauusitalo> Hope that this clarifies something somewhere. Perhaps there are some
    lauusitalo> bugs in this writing but correct me if any.


    lauusitalo> Merry Xmas to you both and all you out there!!

    lauusitalo> Lauri

    lauusitalo> ps. I have nothing to do with Stacker except using it. So these are my
    lauusitalo>     own opinions and observations. Wrong or right.

Does SuperStor work the same way as Stacker?  One big file?
--
Douglas L.Acker                Western Geophysical Exploration Products
____    ____     ____          a division of Western Atlas International Inc.
\   \  /   /\   /   /\         A Litton / Dresser Company
 \   \/   /  \ /   /  \        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  \  /   / \  /   /\   \       Internet  :  [e-mail]
   \/___/   \/___/  \___\      Voice     :  [phone]