Why don't you guys try bzip2(1). The b stands for "block compression", and so can recover from bad blocks. bzip2recover evidently aids in this. Also, bzip2 compression seems to be about 10-20% better than gzip... (e.g. the linux .bz2 kernel src tarballs)
On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Benjamin Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hissssss! The problem with tar+gzip is that gzip lacks error recovery. > >> If you have just one bad block, the entire archive from that point on is > >> toast. I had that happen once. That was one time too many. > > > > I don't doubt what you say, however, I believe the problem has been > > rectified. > > As far as I know, it has not. None of the documentation for gzip or tar > say it has, and the docs for tar says it has *not*. Can you point to > something somewhere that says otherwise? I would be glad to believe you! > > > But I'm paranoid, and really would like to ensure that data written by > > one drive can be read by a different one :) > > I'm paranoid, too, which is why I won't trust gzip+tar, without some > evidence that gzip's error recovery has improved. :-) ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
