warrior said:
go4saket said:
My dear friend, I guess you are mistaken in figures. Check out the image that you have posted.
The file size it shows clearly says that the total compression if calculated is about 85% of the original file size, and compressing that is is pretty simple.
The file size it is showing is in Bytes and not KB. If taking the first file as an example, the original file size if of 2719 KB and the compressed file is of 405 KB. Just ckeck it out again and you will see where you got mistaken...
have you seen the image clearly.. may be you can't able to see the .mdf file sized 2gb.... and .mds file is 2mb. and the source is 410kb. so make the post after geting the point.. ok.
i'm not trying to make the forum fool. if it is posible to us.. then we will able to reduce the HDD space use.
My dear friend, I am just not able to understand where the hell are you able to see a 2 GB size. The MDF file you are talking about is of 2,784,768 Bytes and the MDS file of 2850 Bytes, the total of which is 2,787,618 Bytes which is clearly visible in the address bar kind of thing in the picture that you have posted.
Now, talking about the MDF file, if you convert 2,784,768 Bytes to KB, it comes to 2719 KB, i.e. 2.65 MB and the packed/compressed size is of 415,716 Bytes i.e. 406 KB i.e. 0.39 MB.
Now, I should say that you should check your own image file before posting. Your address bar very clearly shows that the size are all in BYTES and not KB.
Moreover, forget about Bytes/KB/MB/GB stuff. Check the compressed figures. Even if the figures would have been in MB or GB or what so ever, the compression percentage if you can calculate will give you answers to all your questions...
Check it buddy...
No offence...