Why bad in first place?

OK, why is compression not available in the first place? If moving files solves the problem, wouldn't the problem then follow the move or be inherited? In what situation would this be correct?
Thanks...

9. You want to reduce the amount of space used on one of your FAT32 drive fast, so you decide to compress a folder named Odata with user data such as Word and Excel docs. When you want to enable compression on the folders properties sheet you notice compression is not available. How can you compress the files with the least amount of administrative effort and still be able to read the files?
[SIZE=-1]a. Convert the drive to NTFS using convert.exe /fs:ntfs to enable NTFS File Compression[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]b. Convert the drive to NTFS using fs.exe /ntfs to enable NTFS File Compression[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]c. Create a new Compressed Folder and drag all the files from the Odata folder to the Compressed Folder and delete the original Odata folder[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]d. Use NTbackup.exe to create a file backup with maximum compression and delete the original Odata folder[/SIZE]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

dynamik

Compression, encryption, quotas, and various other features are simply not available in FAT32. NTFS provides this type of functionality.

Klingonwork

Thanks guys. I have a brain block on the copy/move thing.

So then, a file or folder that is copied inherits permissions and/or compression/encryption attributes from the new parent WHEREVER that file or folder is copied.

A file or folder that is moved, retains its permissions and/or attributes only when moved to same NTFS volume. If moved off of the volume, then permissions/attributes inherit from parent....

Would this be a true statement?

astorrs

Also note that while A is a perfectly good answer (and what I'd likely do in the real world), the question asked how to do it with the "least amount of administrative effort" in which case the correct answer would be C.

You'll need to watch for questions that want the "least effort" on cert exams from many vendors (especially Microsoft) since usually 1 or more of the answers are technically correct.
P.S. B is just plain wrong and D is even more work than A in my opinion (since a restore of the files would be required before every access).

Klingonwork

phoeneous...you said: Actually, A is the only answer. Compression isn't supported on a FAT32 partition and C assumes that you are still working with the FAT32 partition without converting it first.

Answer C is what threw me...knowing compression is not supported on FAT32, how could it possibly be right? Just plain wrong like B. How could it be right when it doesn't explain the other volume is (or is not) NTFS? And I agree with you cuz in the real world, A is the only answer. If C is correct, then it must be assumed the other volume is NTFS, but assuming anything based on interpretation is dangerous. Fortunately though for the test I am trying hard to work on my Vulcan mind meld abilities for the question writers after the pizza.

In 25 years of break/fix and network support perhaps I've become too explicit, too exact.

Taking 70-270 Friday 4/2

astorrs

phoeneous wrote: »

Actually, A is the only answer. Compression isn't supported on a FAT32 partition and C assumes that you are still working with the FAT32 partition without converting it first.

Not true Compressed Folders are zipped folders and work irrelevant of the file system (obviously since it's just a zip file).

Watch the word distinction on those older MCP tests, NTFS file compression != compressed folders. Like I said both A and C are possible, but C is correct because it's faster to implement - even if not how you'd likely do it in the "real world".

Hyper-Me

Seems like A is right to me?

Its more administrative effort in the beginning, but the question says "...and still be able to access the files". With B or C you would have to keep extracting and rezipping/backing up the files every time you wanted to touch them, therefore creating a lot of overhead in the time it takes to work with the files.

astorrs

Hyper-Me wrote: »

Seems like A is right to me?

Its more administrative effort in the beginning, but the question says "...and still be able to access the files". With B or C you would have to keep extracting and rezipping/backing up the files every time you wanted to touch them, therefore creating a lot of overhead in the time it takes to work with the files.

Let's review the question:

"How can you compress the files with the least amount of administrative effort and still be able to read the files? "

The only criteria in the question are:

Compress the files
Exert the least amount of effort to accomplish #1
Ensure you can still read the files

Therefore the correct answer is C.

Oh and as long as you don't change a base install of Windows (any version in the last 10 years or so) a compressed folder (zip file) looks and operates the same as a folder to the end user; but even if it didn't that wasn't a criteria we needed to meet when choosing the correct answer.

And no I wouldn't not use C in the real world, but that doesn't impact the correct answer for the exam.

Hyper-Me

astorrs wrote: »

Let's review the question:

"How can you compress the files with the least amount of administrative effort and still be able to read the files? "

The only criteria in the question are:
Compress the files

Exert the least amount of effort to accomplish #1

Ensure you can still read the files

Therefore the correct answer is C.

Oh and as long as you don't change a base install of Windows (any version in the last 10 years or so) a compressed folder (zip file) looks and operates the same as a folder to the end user; but even if it didn't that wasn't a criteria we needed to meet when choosing the correct answer.

And no I wouldn't not use C in the real world, but that doesn't impact the correct answer for the exam.

In Windows XP Pro SP3 you can read a file out of a zip folder, but you can not save changes back to that same file. You either extract it, edit it, save it, and place it back in the ZIP, or save it to a new file and put that file in the zip.

You can't read the files if they are in a .bkf somewhere. Unless i am misinterpreting something.

I'm not saying you are wrong, astorrs, i'm just trying to fully understand the wording of the question because its very ambiguous.

Webmaster

Hyper-Me wrote:

I'm not saying you are wrong, astorrs, i'm just trying to fully understand the wording of the question because its very ambiguous.

I wrote the question to be ambiguous so you're likely to choose the right answer only if you know the details of the different types of compression and when they are available, and that when you do make a mistake you won't be tricked into a similar case on the actual exam.

astorrs' explanation you quoted covers it all. The requirement is to be able to read the data files. It's a hypothetical situation as you can expect on the real exam as well. As Astorss said, in a real world situation you would likely go for another option, i.e. converting to NTFS (or getting a larger hard disk).

If it's still confusing, I suggest you read my TechNotes linked to above and play around some more with the different types of compression on an actual Windows XP machine.

Hyper-Me

Webmaster wrote: »

I wrote the question to be ambiguous so you're likely to choose the right answer only if you know the details of the different types of compression and when they are available, and that when you do make a mistake you won't be tricked into a similar case on the actual exam.

astorrs' explanation you quoted covers it all. The requirement is to be able to read the data files. It's a hypothetical situation as you can expect on the real exam as well. As Astorss said, in a real world situation you would likely go for another option, i.e. converting to NTFS (or getting a larger hard disk).

If it's still confusing, I suggest you read my TechNotes linked to above and play around some more with the different types of compression on an actual Windows XP machine.

I'm familiar with the different types of compression available in Windows XP. I've also passed this exam.

The places I would find issue with the question are the following

1. "Read the files" to me, would mean being able to quickly access and work with the files, not simply be able to actually read them at some juncture after a lengthy routine of restoring the files. (although this one is totally up for interpretation). If interpreted the way I took it, this would automatically exclude B and C.

2. The least administrative effort. The only requirement to convert to NTFS is to run the command, and reboot the machine and let it run through. The time it takes to run the command and check the "Compression" box on the folder after a reboot is arguably less than it is to navigate NT Backup and actually make a back up of a large amount of files. Backing up the files also adds in the later overhead of restoring the files to read/work with them, and then redoing the backup if changes have been made.

Not saying your reasoning, or the question are wrong, this is just my point of view.

Webmaster

And that's why it is important to read the question carefully, both practice questions and on the actual exam. If it says 'read' it means 'read' and that's really not open for interpretation in an exam question. Again, it's a theoretical situation made up to test people, in a real world situation you'd be going for A.

And not only does the question include the requirement of the least administrative effort, it explicitly says 'fast' to turn you away from option A.

Anyway, I'm sure astorrs cleared it up for the OP.

Hyper-Me

It wouldn't be the first time I read too far into a detail on a certification question.

Thanks for the explanation.

Devilsbane

phoeneous wrote: »

Copying a file inherits the compression state of the target folder.

Moving a file within the same ntfs volume retains its compression state.

Moving a file to a different ntfs volume inherits the compression state of the target folder.

That is exactly correct.

What easily simplifies this, is that when you move a file, you don't actually move anything. You just modify the MFT to display as a different location. The data sits in the same spot on disc. When you copy, or when you move to a new drive, this data needs to be written on disk because a new file has been created. Ever notice when you move a file on the same disk the created time doesn't change? But if you copy or move to a different disk it does.

Don't know if that helps you, but since I come from a forensics background it makes perfect sense.

Also note: In the real world these days it is pretty rare to come across a fat32 file system. If you somehow did, it is that way for a reason and the convert option is probably not going to be an acceptable answer. And also with the size large size and cheap prices of HDD's seeing compression at all is also rare. This is just one of the problems of taking a 10 year old certification.