On Thu, 2007-10-18 15:20:52 +0200, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > star is definitely much faster than GNU tar ,-) > > > If you know a fater tar implementation than star, send the name, > > > a test and a bug report! > > > > In my testing, star didn't perform very well extracting large > > archives to memory-backed disk. (10% to 15% slower than either > > bsdtar or GNU tar.) > > If you like to compare this, you would need to either call star as "tar" > or tell star to be as insecure as GNU tar is. > > So test again with "star -no-fsync ..."
Is `-no-fsync' the only difference? How much more secure does this
make star over tar? My guestimation tells me that there's only really
a difference in case of a system crash during/right after tarball
extraction.
If you *need* to have the fsync in place because of an unstable
system, you've got quite more servere problems to care about...
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-172-7608481
Signature of: Gib Dein Bestes. Dann übertriff Dich selbst!
the second :
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
