Normal compression: is it safer than higher compressions?

I've seen many of the more experienced TI users here recommending people to use Normal compression when creating images. Is there a reason for that?

Is Normal compression more reliable? If I choose higher compression settings, are those compressed images somehow more likely to have problems when I try to restore?

In my case, some Normal compression images are just larger than can fit on a CD-R, whereas if I increased compression I could fit the image on a CD-R. I won't do that if it will be less reliable though. If the only difference is the length of time the imaging takes, that's fine.

 

Personally I don't think so. If an image gets corrupted I think it does not matter which compression was used. I am not aware of any built means that True Image has to fix corruption.
Also, I do not think that one type of compression is more susceptible to errors or corruption than the other types of compression.
If I recommend "Normal" compression it would be because (depending on the speed of your machine and the speed of the media where you store the image) the image process could be shorter even though you have larger files.

 

Hello tuttle,

Thank you for choosing Acronis True Image (http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/).

The only difference between image compression ratio is the speed of image creation. The higher compression level is, the longer it takes to create and restore the image.

Thank you.
--
Ilya Toytman

 

Thanks John, and thank you Ilya. That's good to know.

 

I am not aware of any built means that True Image has to fix corruption.

...translation?

 

That means that I don't know of any way that True Image can fix corrupted files.