|
From: | Tupshin Harper |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch-log sizes |
Date: | Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:32:08 -0800 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 |
Miles Bader wrote:
This reminds me of a question that I've been meaning to ask for some time. Is there a strong reason why it makes sense for arch to store files in compressed tars as opposed to storing compressed files in uncompressed tars? Specifically, the difference between a .tgz containing many .txt files vs a .tar containg many .txt.gz files. (Extensions used just to illustrate the fundamental nature of the files in question). Presumably compression ratios would be somewhat less, but accessing a limited subset of the files in the tar would be *much* cheaper.On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:41:11AM -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 19:04, Miles Bader wrote:Would it be practical to allow some sort of compacted patch-log storage for sets of old patch-logs, e.g., a .tar.gz file, managed via explicit user commands?For your purposes, it might be an advantage to *not* compress the tar files. Your primary reason for using tars is to represent several small files as one larger file, which an uncompressed tar can do.No, the compression is quite important too. On ASCII text gzip can reduce the size of files dramatically (especially on regular text with lots of keywords like patch-logs), and as asuffield has pointed out, the size of the patch-log text itself is a problem, not merely the file-system overhead.
Any thoughts? What am I missing? -Tupshin
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |