Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:32:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Leftwich <Hostmaster@Video2Video.Com> To: Matthias Buelow <mkb@mukappabeta.de> Cc: FreeBSD LIST <FreeBSD-Questions@FreeBSD.Org> Subject: Re: mv vs. tar [pax isn't just a tv channel] Message-ID: <20020529212825.T78044-100000@earl-grey.cloud9.net> In-Reply-To: <20020530012023.GB593@altair.mukappabeta.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Matthias Buelow wrote: > > When moving a large directory (hoping to preserve ALL modification times), is it better/smarter to use the "mv" command, or first "tar" the directory then "untar" it to the new location? Some interesting debate to follow... > I prever pax -rw, since you don't have to run the data through a pipe then (like you would have to with tar cf -|(cd ...; tar xf -).) I think cpio in pass-through mode is equivalent but haven't verified. --mkb Hm, I'd never heard of "pax -rw" but then again, things involving "cpio" and "rcp" and "scp" scare the pants off my pants! So my question is... does pax or any other cp or mv command in FreeBSD "intelligently zip together" a directory when the same name already exists? For example: $ mv /this/here/directory /this/new/location/ ...where /this/new/location/directory/ already exists, and so this command line would "weave" new files into the existing directory rather than complaining about its presence (and possibly as a bonus, favor the 'oldest' ctime modification information). Did I lose y'all? -- Peter Leftwich President & Founder Video2Video Services Box 13692, La Jolla, CA, 92039 USA +1-413-403-9555 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020529212825.T78044-100000>