"Ignacio Marambio Catán" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Its performance sucks compared to star?
This is another story ;-) Star is fully double buffered and is able to read data in big chunks that are much bigger than the "archive block size". GNU tar is also very inefficient in creating tar headers. Most of the USER CPU time of a typical tar implementation is spend in creating tar headers. If you create POSIX.1-2001 extended tar archives, you need to create two tar headers for every file plus a extension header that contains things like: 30 atime=1180086803.710518000 30 ctime=1163542510.114077000 30 mtime=1163542496.170526000 23 SCHILY.dev=26738691 20 SCHILY.ino=43585 18 SCHILY.nlink=1 27 SCHILY.filetype=regular star still needs less CPU time for creating POSIX.1-2001 arhives than GNU tar needs to create POSIX.1-1988 archives. GNU tar spends more than 3x the time for creating the headers than star does. > > Seriously. I can't think of any reason why I would use gnu tar instead > > of star if I had a choice. > > > check what redhat has to say about star and tar > http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-5-manual/Deployment_Guide-en-US/s1-acls-archiving.html The claim, that star's CLI differs from TAR is just wrong. Star's CLI is 100% SUSv2 - it is GNU tar's CLI that does deviate from the standard. But this is a well known problem if you ask people from the Linux camp. 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 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
