On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 04:31:23PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote: > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Andres P <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 04:17:16PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote: > >> > If bsdtar -tf is deemed as reliable, then it should make the file(1) > >> > check redundant, seeing that makepkg uses bsdtar to extract. > >> > >> Except you've now introduced the overhead of reading every archive > >> twice which is really stupid, since 95% of files will pass the "file" > >> check. > >> > > I realized that it was slower before I mentioned it: > > ?? ??$ time for i in {1..1000}; do file -bizL neon-0.29.3-2-i686.pkg.tar.xz > > >/dev/null; done > > ?? ??real ?? ??0m20.664s > > ?? ??$ time for i in {1..1000}; do bsdtar -tf neon-0.29.3-2-i686.pkg.tar.xz > > >/dev/null; done > > ?? ??real ?? ??1m16.193s > > > > But it greatly simplifies code :/ > > > > It's the python dilemma... > > neon? What is that, 172K? Try something that would really suck. I > don't care if it greatly simplifies code. > > dmc...@dublin ~ > $ ll /var/cache/makepkg/src/linux-2.6.34.tar.bz2 > -rw-r--r-- 1 dmcgee wheel 65M May 16 20:46 > /var/cache/makepkg/src/linux-2.6.34.tar.bz2 > > This is *ONE* iteration: > > dmc...@dublin ~ > $ time bsdtar -tf /var/cache/makepkg/src/linux-2.6.34.tar.bz2 >/dev/null > > real 0m51.631s > user 0m49.940s > sys 0m0.287s >
Would caching help here if "bsdtar -tf" loads the archive into memory? > -Dan >
