While the actual time it takes to compress the data does introduce latency, when the CPU clock speed is in gigahertz i. If you get good results i. From there, you might want to do more benchmarks on actual hard drive performance. A truly important benchmark in your case would be to see how fast your games load, and see how fast your Visual Studio projects compile.
Best Wireless iPhone Earbuds. Best Bluetooth Trackers. Best eReaders. Best VPN. Browse All News Articles. Windows 11 Uninstall Clock. Teams Walkie-Talkie.
PCI Express 6. Wordle Scams. T-Mobile iCloud Private Relay. Avira Antivirus Crypto Miner. Linux PinePhone Pro. Google Green Messages. Use Your iPhone as a Webcam. Hide Private Photos on iPhone. All Microsoft's PowerToys for Windows. I decided to test how long it took Photoshop 5. I took the time from clicking on photoshop till it was fully loaded. The photoshop program folder was First I defragged the drive and tested the time for it to load uncompressed with my stopwatch.
I got 9. Then I did it again and got 4. Now I compressed the folder and restarted to flush the RAM. I also defragged the drive again. This time I got 9. Note that the shorter time in both instances is the result of simply closing the photoshop program and then starting it again without flushing the RAM.
So there didn't seem to be any significant difference here as the divergence is well within the margin of error from using a stopwatch. So now I decided to try opening a large tif file. This tiff file was This time I turned seti home off.
In this case I didn't defrag because this particular drive is so full the defragger refuses to defrag it. I restarted here again. This is for the compressed tiff file I clicked on it and got Now I uncompressed the file and restarted. This time I got So here we have a significant difference. The first test didn't seem to show any perceptible difference but the second test would seem to indicate that compression indeed degrades performance.
You have a quite slow disk, so your question does have merit. NTFS compression is processor-intensive and is tuned for speed rather than compression efficiency. I would expect that you would see a very small improvement for read operations. However, when accessing a file residing in the system cache you will have a performance hit, since it will have to be decompressed again on every access.
You will of course see that write operations will be slower because of the additional compression. Copying files on this same NTFS disk requires decompression and compression, so these will suffer the most. NTFS Compression can also increase fragmentation significantly, but this is not a problem for most 'typical' computers under 'typical' work loads.
Many types of files, such as JPEG images or video or. Files smaller than one disk cluster typically 4K are not compressed, as there is no gain. However, even smaller cluster size is sometimes advised when compressing the entire volume.
NTFS compression is recommended for relatively static volumes or files. It is never recommended for system files or the Users folder. But as hardware configuration varies from one computer model to another, depending on disk, bus, RAM and CPU, only testing will tell what the exact effect of compression will be on your computer model. It will make operations slower. Unfortunately, we cannot measure exactly how much or how little it will affect your system.
When a file that is compressed gets open, it takes processor power to uncompress the file so the system can use it; when you are done with it and hit Save, it uses more processor power to compress it again. Only you can measure the performance though. Windows compresses non-recently used data in RAM, with even SSDs being a fraction of the speed I'd guess the performance hit is a non-issue.
I'm more concerned about compressed blocks that develop a bit error and can't recover some or all of data Anything that produces a disk that's non-readable on alternate OSes and potentially lowers reliability isn't worth the extra speed it might bring, IMHO. Videogame texture pack files and such are usually already compressed, so I don't see how layering another set of compression will improve things.
It speeds things up even on SSDs for certain use cases. My other problem with compression is that since images and movies are already compressed, as are MS Office docs and tons of other formats, you're stuck marking files as compressible and micromanaging it. For a linux source tree or large open source project it could help a lot since compression is usually optimal on text files. Microsoft Windows NTFS compression should not be used for anything other than log files or, generally speaking, text files or otherwise highly compressible files.
This is the normal speed for zipping a file with one 2. NTFS Compression is not multithreaded. This is a huge problem! If you don't get around x compression your are massively loosing performance both in reading and in writing.
This is what happens. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group.
0コメント