chuckmg Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 I have a folder of downloads with 8.3 GB of data (Windows Explorer). These are mostly executables, hence I don't expect much compression. After recycling, Downloads.rbf = 10.3 GB. The log file shows: Completed: 16016 files, 9.8 GB. Can someone explain the differences between the 8.3, 10.3, and 9.8 GB? And why the compressed rbf file is larger than the original data? Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekr0phage Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Hi Chuck, What version of Retrospect did you use to run this backup? I know that if you attempt to compress already compressed files there tends to be bloating. I believe I saw something similar with 6.5 - a (roughly) 20G volume of mp3's was backed up, the resulting backup measuring 22G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckmg Posted June 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2006 Hi Foster, I'm using v. 7.5. I took an image of the same folder with True Image & compression & it came out to 8.1 GB. As I said, I don't expect much compression on mainly executables, but to be larger by 25% seemed excessive. We'll just chalk it up to an anomaly. Thanks for the response. At least I know that I am not doing something stupid. Chuckto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.