Archive size - confused

[wilbertnl]

Hello All,

I'm in my 30-day evaluation of Peer-ISR (build 163).

I have a frozen primary snapshot which shows as ~1.5 GB
I have a secondary snapshot which shows as ~1.8 GB
I have 35 GB anchored data

I just created an archive of the secondary snapshot.
And the archive is ~8.3 GB.
(the archive of the primary snapshot is ~1.8 GB)

Now, does that make sense to anyone?

http://www.geocities.com/wilbertnl/images/asize.png

[Leapfrog Software]

Greetings wilbertnl,

Have you tried the Actions | Calculate Snapshot Size for the Minimal and Primary snapshots? Snapshot calculation is only performed when it is the destination of a copy, or when manually initiated. So as to not slow down your system, the active snapshot size is never computed in the background even though you maybe adding service packs, applications, etc.

[wilbertnl]

Thank you Todd,

After calculation the snapshot "minimal setup" shows ~8.5 GB.

Before the ISR-trial, my system partition, with all applications, was not over <3 GB.
Could possibly some of the anchored data be included in the snapshot?

---

I found it, at first I had some folder in the anchor pool, but I decided to move that folder, so it got 'de-anchored', I forgot to include the moved folder in the ISR anchored data.

[Peter2150]

Hi Wilbertnl

You've already made the case for keeping what you anchor to a minimum and keep it all in one folder. Take from those using the program, you are going to cause yourself extra unnecessary grief.

Pete

[Leapfrog Software]

Greetings wilbertnl,

Anchored data is excluded from the snapshot size calculation. Have you purused your folder structure to see what folder is possbily using this space?

[wilbertnl]

{QUOTE-> Anchored data is excluded from the snapshot size calculation. Have you purused your folder structure to see what folder is possbily using this space? <-QUOTE}

Thank you Todd,

Well, there were two causes of the confusion.
1. I didn't know that the showed size of the current snapshot was outdated, and actually in build 163 the GUI does NOT update when you click 'calculate'.
I had to open the console and type in the command myself.
(Is this a bug report?)

2. I did move some folders out of the anchored area into the current snapshot.

(I know that build 166 is the latest, but Peer-ISR is offering 30-days for trial with this 163 release.)

[dallen]

wilbertnl,
In my opinion, you are doing both yourself and First Defense a disservice by not using the latest version. Again, this is just my opinion, but I feel that 166 is significanly better. For example, the ability to export snapshots in 166 is simply a tremenous improvement. Please do not take this the wrong way, I just think you would get a more accurate feel for what FD is truly capable of by using the latest build.

[wilbertnl]

Thank you Dallen, and you make a good point.
But for now it means the difference of 14 or 30 days in trial.

[dallen]

My position on this is that if you cannot figure out that this program is totally awesome and a necessary component to your system within 14 days, as opposed to 30, then something is wrong. Save yourself some time, get the updated version, decide within 14 days, and buy the darn thing.

[crofttk]

{QUOTE-> ... For example, the ability to export snapshots in 166 is simply a tremenous improvement. .... <-QUOTE}You're so right, dallen. I myself am surprised that Raxco didn't stamp build 166 as version 2.

It IS a BIG difference, wilbertnl and really widens your options with FDISR. I also recommend you update.

[wilbertnl]

Are you guys shareholders of Raxco?

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Are you guys shareholders of Raxco? <-QUOTE}

In a way yes. The "dividends" I've received from use of FD-ISR, and Raxco in general is way up there. The pain FD-ISR has spared me from is immeasurable, plus the freedom to do things on my system I wouldn't otherwise dare to do.

Also my contacts with Raxco have been excellent, and very educational.

What can I say. I plead guilty:D

[wilbertnl]

What bothers me about Raxco is that they offer ISR downloadable for $70 en on CD though online resellers for $43.
That doesn't make sense to me.

[crofttk]

Well, have you ever heard the joke where a guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doc my arm hurts when I do this", (he moves his arm a certain way to demonstrate to the doctor). The doctor says, "then don't do that anymore, that'll be $75 please" ?

I guess someone has calculated that someone might get in a big enough rush that they can't wait a couple of days for a CD to come in the mail.

I don't like it or see the sense in it either. Apparently, it makes sense to somebody at Raxco.

I think the clamor you're experiencing from us, wilbertnl, hasn't got to do with financial interest but does have to do with the fact that there are so few places for Raxco software users to get together that we're starved for discussion about it. You've been a good sounding board !;)

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> What bothers me about Raxco is that they offer ISR downloadable for $70 en on CD though online resellers for $43.
That doesn't make sense to me. <-QUOTE}

Hi wilbertnl

I am going to have to if I can get an explanation for that. I do know some products you get very different service buying from the retailers. Wait till something bad strikes, and you are in a hurry and FD-ISR saves the bacon quickly. Suddenly the price gets cheap.

Pete

[dallen]

I agree with Peter2150 that it is cheap either way when you consider the benefits. My best guess is that the cost is $70, but that discounts have been given on volume purchases to software vendors as to allow them to be profitable selling copies for significantly less than the cost of buying a single copy. This also tells me that Raxco prefers that the buyer purchase from one of the software vendors.

I am not a "shareholder," but would consider being one if they went public, much like I'm considering becoming a Vonage (http://www.vonage.com/) shareholder with their upcoming IPO.

My big question to Raxco is, "Since it seems that you give volume purchase deals to software vendors that purchase your CDs allowing them to offer them for re-sale at significantly reduced rates, would you consider giving volume purchase deals to someone that wants to purchase bulk downloads for redistribution and offer them for sale at similarly reduced pricing?"