Volker Armin Hemmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, it seems tar can not handle 4.7Gb files any way. I'm not sure why
> > but it seems happy with 2.2Gb files. Anybody know about the upper
> > limits on tar?
> >
>
> emm. It should be handle to at least 8gb. And since I use tar to write to my
> 280gb tapelib ... and this guy used a 21gb tarball for his tests:
> http://bulk.fefe.de/lk2006/bench.html
>
> you are doing something wrong.
Well, quoting a troll like fefe is not a good idea too. The page is full of
nonsense. OK, it at least mentions a 21 GB tar archive but not a tar archive
with a 21 GB file inside.
The historic tar archive format supports single files up to 8 GB in tar
archives. Since POSIX.1-2001, the extended tar archive format (called "pax")
has no size limitations.
Linux typically does not come with "tar" but with a tar clone called GNU tar
that by default does not write standard compliant archives but it does not have
a 4.7 GB limit.
Putting tar archives directly on CD/DVD media works, but it may confuse people.
When discussing the best way for putting large files on DVDs, you should take
into account that people who insert a medium that does not get automounted
typically believe that there is a problem with the medium.
This is why I added support for files > 4 GB to mkisofs.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
[email protected] mailing list
