I dont understand, you need: - one time backup - a scheduled backup ??? Dr Skip wrote: > It does really help, especially in getting the efficiency of large files rather > than millions of little ones. The original test 60GB compresses down to 21GB so > far, without special compression values. 1 TB here costs $200 (US) and change, > and I have several TB to back up, with a mind towards doing it right some day > and having at least 2 full backups somewhere at any given time. ;) > > At those rates, it would also speed up the network transfer by up to 3x if > transferring to a drive on the net, as I would assume the processing is much > faster than the I/O. Moving terabytes has made for loooong backup times. > > 7zip has turned out to be the most reliable, and in fact has a tar mode, but > zip seems to work fine so far. It had some oddities though: In the shell, *.* > will include everything. In 7z, *.* includes only those things with a '.', > which is understandable. '*' is the proper form. However, if I had a folder > such as c:\temp and backed it up as C:\temp\ without any wildcards, it would > zip up every occurrence where a directory was named temp into that zipfile, no > matter how deep it was somewhere else. Interesting redundancy... > > -Skip > > > Apptech wrote: > >> How critical is the need for ZIP files? >> With modern disk costs plummeting the savings are not liable >> to be vast in many cases unless there is very substantial >> quantities of data involved. >> SATA seems to be approaching $US0.15/GB here at best size >> and that will probably be under $US0.10/GB before long. >> >> That will be $10/100 GB and $100/TB ! :-). Down from the >> $20,000/GB or so when I bought my first HDD - several times >> that in real terms. Few other things I've bought have even >> come down in price by a factor of 200,000+ in my lifetime >> :-). >> >> >> Russell >> >> -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist