Hi there, I just joined.

Is it better to leave the images as they are, in their individual folders, or would it be better if you use a software to make a zipped archive or an .iso, so that an entire folder of let's say 500 images becomes one file? Does storing too many images (which are very small files) cause more stress on the hard disk and so would it be better to make 'packs' and save them as large single files containing many images?

My question has only to do with the work the hard disk has to do when dealing with the images; it doesn't matter how much space is occupied (I'm not asking if zipping them will help in saving space). One reason I'm asking this is because when moving the files from one partition to another, thousands of files being moved takes a lot more time than a single file containing a pack of images. I recently moved about 8 GBs this way, and was wondering if this is a good way to treat the hard disk...

Thanks.

Would built in NTFS compression help ?

Format the volume, and check the 'Enable Compression'

_________________
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you probably don't fully understand the situation. ... Mr Kipling

https://www.mjm.co.uk/

I don't understand, how would compression help. Do you mean in shifting the files faster or something?

What I wanted to know was what practices cause more stress on the hard disk.

Thanks though.

Pack them up in an archive or an iso. Find a tool to mount them virtualy when need to view them.

Yes of course I could do that, all I want to know is if there is any need to do so. What would be better for the hd, hundreds of small files or one large file?

The hard disk itself, couldn't care less; as far as the OS is concerned, well, depends on the OS - Mac OS X, for example, would automatically defrag files under a certain size threshold. The best thing to do is to make sure that the allocation unit size is as large as possible given the average size of the file.

Also, with regard to compression and using other containers - think what is easier to salvage - unobfuscated jpeg files or containers with jpeg files, or, god forbid (and I am not a religious person!), compressed data that doesn't look like a jpeg at all?

I know nothing about the allocation unit size; will have to find out more.



Umm, me is pretty dumb at times, couldn't exactly get your meaning, you are saying its better to put it in containers (like an .iso) rather than compressing it, right?

Thanks for the answer.

No. Don't use containers or compress the images. Just put the images onto the disk, there's no `magic' ultimate solution. The disk will eventually fail, so either back them up regularly or expect to eventually pay for data recovery/salvage operation.

.

_________________
Buy your friends Toshiba\Hitachi and your enemies Seagate.