[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-tar] GNU TAR or STAR -- speed comparision

From: Jan-Benedict Glaw
Subject: Re: [Bug-tar] GNU TAR or STAR -- speed comparision
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:56:25 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Thu, 2007-10-18 15:20:52 +0200, Joerg Schilling <address@hidden> wrote:
> Tim Kientzle <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > star is definitely much faster than GNU tar ,-)
> > > If you know a fater tar implementation than star, send the name,
> > > a test and a bug report!
> >
> > In my testing, star didn't perform very well extracting large
> > archives to memory-backed disk.  (10% to 15% slower than either
> > bsdtar or GNU tar.)
> If you like to compare this, you would need to either call star as "tar"
> or tell star to be as insecure as GNU tar is.
> So test again with "star -no-fsync ..."

Is `-no-fsync' the only difference?  How much more secure does this
make star over tar?  My guestimation tells me that there's only really
a difference in case of a system crash during/right after tarball

If you *need* to have the fsync in place because of an unstable
system, you've got quite more servere problems to care about...


      Jan-Benedict Glaw      address@hidden              +49-172-7608481
Signature of:                 Gib Dein Bestes. Dann ├╝bertriff Dich selbst!
the second  :

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]