> I believe that it is better to use the tar.gz format for storing
compressed
> files. One, it provides better compression than zip.
> And, I might be wrong with the second reason that is the zip file format
is
> more suceptible to damages - mostly
> because of its file format - all archive information are at a block at the
> beginning of the file, while tar stores individual information
> before each file.
tar.gz is actually a bad idea, this is because the tar file is gzipped, so
if even one byte is bad in the file anywhere, the rest of the file followig
that bad byte is going to be junk. ZIP stores the directory index at the
end, and also has an entry before the compressed data of each file starts.
Also the zip format compresses each file individually, so if any data gets
currupted, only the affected files won't decompress. The utility pkzipfix
uses this file header at the begining of each file to repair the archive
directory that is stored at the end.This tar.gz problem can also be there if
you use solid archives in rar. Most modern compressors use this kind of
compression and so you might be putting your files at rist. Also if you
wan't to be able to recover your data, don't compress archive files, ask
your archiver to "store" them insted.
Ambar
================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject
header. Check archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org
