Data would not be in use just archived. Right now I have 748GB on a 2TB raid 1. Is there a way to backup to an older reliable 500gb?
Fitting 2TB data on 500GB hard drive for backup?
- Thread starter Compman55
- Start date
Not unless the data is highly compressible.
Buy a 2 or 3 TB drive and schedule daily/weekly backups as needed.
Buy a 2 or 3 TB drive and schedule daily/weekly backups as needed.
Even with the best compression method, which would probably take MONTHS, you still wouldn't be able to save more than maybe 200GBs out of those 2048~.
If it's on RAID1 (mirroring), then why do you need to back it up to another harddrive?
Surely the RAID1 is acting as a backup...
Surely the RAID1 is acting as a backup...
icanhascpu2
Senior member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 228
- 0
- 0
Why are you people making baseless guesses? Whats the point?
Also, months? Not unless you use a stupid slow compression method like a paq8 or durilca variant. 7z ultra would do 748GB in a matter of 1-3 days (not sure what youre talking about 2048).
You realize 4:1 lossless compression is VERY easy to do right? It all depends on what is on his drive already.
jacktesterson
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 5,493
- 3
- 81
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
you need a 5D hard drive. It can store data in the same physical location multiple times by storing it in a replica of that location in another dimension.
Simple answer, rather than deal with compression just buy bigger drives. Much easier, and less chance of corruption or other issues.
Simple answer, rather than deal with compression just buy bigger drives. Much easier, and less chance of corruption or other issues.
I think True Image should be able to be useful. Assuming a 70% ratio, you may still have to archive 50GB somewhere else or just not include it in the backup. Dont know how long it will take. Could be several hours. http://kb.acronis.com/content/16791
Last edited:
You call them baseless guesses, I call them educated guesses based on prior experience.
Compression ratios depend ENTIRELY on what is stored.
MP3 files compress a bit. High-end movie codecs compress almost none. Text files can compress at sometimes 30:1 ratio.
If it's a huge library of old GIF files, it'll compress an amazing amount. Somehow, I suspect it's mostly music and porn, which means that it probably won't fit. If it's got executables in there, it might compress a bit, but throwing out numbers is likely just a guess.
I highly doubt that (lossless) compression of that type of data would get to 4:1. Most of that is going to be lucky if it hits 1.1:1. Most of the savings would likely be in slack space elimination.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Nobody has 2TB of uncompressed Word documents. Nobody.
ps: even if they did, if they were .docx they would already be zip files
Anyone hoarding 2TB+ data will have mostly compressed media files, zip/rar volumes, ISOs, etc.
All of these are already compressed natively. JPG and Divx obviously, but most PDFs use compression (and if they are large it's because they contain JPG which are again compressed already), and any HD imaging and backup software already does it's own compression.
Attempting to compress this data will simply waste days of your time and the output file will be bigger than the original.
Last edited:
Notice in my original post:
This is exactly what I mean by "educated guess".
And the answer is ...
Looks like my original post was not very far off base.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
You can pretty much tell by the size of the data people are moving around what kind of data they are storing. Nobody has 2TB+ of personal data that doesn't consist 95% of compressed media files.
Sorry but tax records, shopping lists, contact lists, and bank statements do not require 2 TB of storage. It's ALWAYS going to be mp3s, jpgs, and video files.
If someone personally walked up to me asking if they can compress 6 TB of data I will automatically reply no because I already know that in order for them to have 6 TB of data in the first place, I know that 5.99 TB of that HAS to be movie rips.
Sorry but tax records, shopping lists, contact lists, and bank statements do not require 2 TB of storage. It's ALWAYS going to be mp3s, jpgs, and video files.
If someone personally walked up to me asking if they can compress 6 TB of data I will automatically reply no because I already know that in order for them to have 6 TB of data in the first place, I know that 5.99 TB of that HAS to be movie rips.
Last edited:
tar cjvf destination/filename.tar.bz2 source
And it depends on what kind of data we're talking about. If it's unstructured, uncompressed, then you can get better way better than a 2:1 compression ratio with bzip2. If they're movies or JPEGs, not so much compressible.
icanhascpu2
Senior member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 228
- 0
- 0
To the OP:
Yes it can be done, and it wont take days to do. However you need to give a rough estimate of the type of files youre looking to compress if its 90% movies/mp3s then youre going to maybe see 10% compression IF that, so it would be a waste of time. If there are a lot of ISOs, many of them have a good chance of getting compressed well (many ISOs use light compression, they just want their data to fit on a certain medium, and sometimes they dont use compression at all and youre left with a large portion of the ISO containing no data).
For something like 700GB youre looking at (edit) 24-36 hours worth of time to compress. I am on a relatively slow (Athlon II 2core) system and Im getting 3MB/s. But thats without me skipping jps or avi files. Only focusing on iso/lightly compressed material that 760GB would go much faster.
Native compression doesn't mean its compressed well. It likely means it was compressed with real time schemes. I was pointing out a flaw in logic without resorting to assumptions about what is on his drive..
I would agree that its probably mostly audio/video on anything that can fill a 2TB drive, but you seem to want to ignore the fact that he said nothing about having 2TB filled (youre too busy guessing from the looks of your post) and he wrote out as plain as day how much he has to compress.
You do not seem to understand how compression works very well, and its pretty evident by your lack of reading the OP and thinking 800GB would take a 'genie' granting wishes and 'compression' is just a term where their are not hugely different methods of doing is fast (most native schemes) and very well (7z). Neither of them would take days to do that amount of data unless youre using a 10 year old system.
Ive done this stuff myself many times just for shits and giggles and backups, I'm that big a nerd. If you want to learn how varied compression can be their are many places to look. http://www.maximumcompression.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.php
We are at 6TB now? You just keep going higher!
Also you'd be wrong. However improbable it is for someone to spend the time doing that or impractical to recompress 6TB of movies, that fact that it can be done is different from that it probably shouldn't be done.
1080p movies can be further compressed to 4:1 with almost no discernable artifacting from the original at 6~ feet from the screen. More than you’d think goes directly into rendering the poor SnR from the raw original (noise) as accurately as possible. Proper use of denoising makes a huge impact on size and a very small one on film quality.
But again easier to just get a bigger HDD.
You're wrong
/you
Yes it can be done, and it wont take days to do. However you need to give a rough estimate of the type of files youre looking to compress if its 90% movies/mp3s then youre going to maybe see 10% compression IF that, so it would be a waste of time. If there are a lot of ISOs, many of them have a good chance of getting compressed well (many ISOs use light compression, they just want their data to fit on a certain medium, and sometimes they dont use compression at all and youre left with a large portion of the ISO containing no data).
For something like 700GB youre looking at (edit) 24-36 hours worth of time to compress. I am on a relatively slow (Athlon II 2core) system and Im getting 3MB/s. But thats without me skipping jps or avi files. Only focusing on iso/lightly compressed material that 760GB would go much faster.
Nobody has 2TB of uncompressed Word documents. Nobody.
ps: even if they did, if they were .docx they would already be zip files
Anyone hoarding 2TB+ data will have mostly compressed media files, zip/rar volumes, ISOs, etc.
All of these are already compressed natively. JPG and Divx obviously, but most PDFs use compression (and if they are large it's because they contain JPG which are again compressed already), and any HD imaging and backup software already does it's own compression.
Attempting to compress this data will simply waste days of your time and the output file will be bigger than the original.
Native compression doesn't mean its compressed well. It likely means it was compressed with real time schemes. I was pointing out a flaw in logic without resorting to assumptions about what is on his drive..
I would agree that its probably mostly audio/video on anything that can fill a 2TB drive, but you seem to want to ignore the fact that he said nothing about having 2TB filled (youre too busy guessing from the looks of your post) and he wrote out as plain as day how much he has to compress.
You do not seem to understand how compression works very well, and its pretty evident by your lack of reading the OP and thinking 800GB would take a 'genie' granting wishes and 'compression' is just a term where their are not hugely different methods of doing is fast (most native schemes) and very well (7z). Neither of them would take days to do that amount of data unless youre using a 10 year old system.
Ive done this stuff myself many times just for shits and giggles and backups, I'm that big a nerd. If you want to learn how varied compression can be their are many places to look. http://www.maximumcompression.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.php
We are at 6TB now? You just keep going higher!
Also you'd be wrong. However improbable it is for someone to spend the time doing that or impractical to recompress 6TB of movies, that fact that it can be done is different from that it probably shouldn't be done.
1080p movies can be further compressed to 4:1 with almost no discernable artifacting from the original at 6~ feet from the screen. More than you’d think goes directly into rendering the poor SnR from the raw original (noise) as accurately as possible. Proper use of denoising makes a huge impact on size and a very small one on film quality.
But again easier to just get a bigger HDD.
You're wrong
/you
Last edited:
icanhascpu2
Senior member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 228
- 0
- 0
I'd have to agree here. Nothing like having a 760GB .7z file become corrupt!~
Though id stay away from 3-4TB drives. Even if you raid 1, one goes bad and youre out 150+$
WhoBeDaPlaya
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2000
- 7,414
- 402
- 126
That and the whole 4K sector deal. I like to stick with tried and true 512-byte sector drives like some of the <= 2TB Hitachis.
tweakboy
Diamond Member
Try raring it.... heheh man I doubt it tho. its not going to happen. You need a 1TB if you wanna put that large image on it.... and Hitachi drives blow goat if anyone has had one they brake easily. Got very negative comments towards it, I read, just fyi,,, thx gl
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter