[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: backup archive format saved to disk

On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:39:50PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> >
> >I quite agree.  But in the absence of error-correction codes, 
> >uncompressed is batter.
> >
> >And if your error-correction software ahould happen to be unusable in 
> >several years, your errors will not be easy to corrected.
> Even with FEC uncompressed may be better. OTOH, fewer bits to fail
> is an advantage.

there's a math problem for you, though its obviously just a scaling of
the other. So if you get 25% compression (compressed is 75% size of
original), how does the fewer number of bits improve the probability
of losses? Please, though, don't figure it out. just speculation.

> >Did you ever write any code in the 1970's that can't be run any more?
> >I did.
> I wrote some machine language programs for the IBM 1401 in 1969.
> Does that count as programs that can't be run any more?

my oldest is 6510 assembler rewrite of the kernel for my C64. I'm such
a young thing ;-)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: