Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Article #10347Re: Stacker 3.0 Questions
From: Doug Acker
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:12
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:12
98 lines
5744 bytes
5744 bytes
>>>>> On 15 Dec 92 10:42:28 GMT, lauusitalo@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi said: lauusitalo> In article <rnk2ps@rpi.edu>, duchad@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (David Benedict Ducharme) writes: > In article <Bz6tCw.Cv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mlandaue@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (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 >>mlandaue@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu >> > 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 > duchad@rpi.edu 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 : acker@wg2.waii.com \/___/ \/___/ \___\ Voice : (713) 964-6128
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<DLA.92Dec16071120@se05.wg2.waii.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!airgun!airgun.wg.waii.com!dlaReferences:
<Bz6tCw.Cv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <rnk2ps@rpi.edu> <1992Dec15.124228.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!airgun!airgun.wg.waii.com!dla From: dla@se05.wg2.waii.com (Doug Acker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Stacker 3.0 Questions Message-ID: <DLA.92Dec16071120@se05.wg2.waii.com> Date: 16 Dec 92 13:12:34 GMT References: <Bz6tCw.Cv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <rnk2ps@rpi.edu> <1992Dec15.124228.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> Sender: news@airgun.wg.waii.com Organization: western geophysical exploration products Lines: 98 Nntp-Posting-Host: se05.wg2.waii.com In-reply-to: lauusitalo@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi's message of 15 Dec 92 10:42:28 GMT