Archive size - confused

Discussion in 'FirstDefense-ISR Forum' started by wilbertnl, May 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    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
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2006
  2. Leapfrog Software

    Leapfrog Software Leapfrog Management

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Posts:
    251
    Location:
    Northern Nevada, USA
    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.
     
  3. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2006
  4. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    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
     
  5. Leapfrog Software

    Leapfrog Software Leapfrog Management

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Posts:
    251
    Location:
    Northern Nevada, USA
    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?
     
  6. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    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.)
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2006
  7. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    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.
     
  8. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Thank you Dallen, and you make a good point.
    But for now it means the difference of 14 or 30 days in trial.
     
  9. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    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.
     
  10. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    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.
     
  11. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Are you guys shareholders of Raxco?
     
  12. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    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
     
  13. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    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.
     
  14. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    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 !;)
     
  15. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    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
     
  16. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    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 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?"
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.