Still, doesn't it seem like having uncovered this issue, that contact
between Joerg and the quite active zfs team be established?  I don't
think its my "right" to had out the appropriate aliases.

I don't suscribe, but I believe there is a fairly active zfs-discuss
alias (or something like that) on the OpenSolaris site.  I'm sure a
posting there would establish the communication link.

- jek3

> From: John Plocher <John.Plocher at Sun.COM>
...
> [removed ksh project from the distribution, this should be only going 
> out to the ARC community...]
> 
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> A quick scan thru the tar related cases submitted after 2004/480 
> >> (star) shows only two changes, neither of which should be difficult to 
> >> reconcile with star:
> >>     
> >
> > Does this mean that someone did even bypass the ARC mechanism when
> > adding zfs ACL support to Sun tar? This would be of interest to me as we 
> >   
> 
> No, it means that I missed something when I did the above "quick scan" 
> of arc cases.
> If the case you mentioned didn't include the word "tar" in its 
> description, I didn't
> find it...
> >> PSARC 2004/503 tar: alter efsize functionality
> >>    tar can currently overrun it's efsize variable and
> >>    subsequently dump core.  See the following bug for
> >>    more details:
> >>    4977739 *tar* coredumps when backing up files 8 gb
> >>            using mutiple volumes
> >>     
> >
> > Star uses a different and better method for multi-volume archives.
> >
> >   
> As long as it can *read* archives created by the above (and, maybe also 
> create
> archives on demand that can be read by this older tar), I don't see a 
> problem...
> > I would recommend people who have problems with it to use star
> > which offers a documented multi-volume archive support.
> >   
> As good as it may be, that advice doesn't help the people who ran into 
> 4977739....
> >> PSARC 2006/506 tar(1) support for compression/decompression
> >>     
> > star supports this since 1997 and even more:
> >   
> Which means that the effort needed to converge these projects should be 
> minimal.
> 
>   -John
> 


Reply via email to