Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:14:05 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Testing Tar (was Re: bad news for bsdtar..) Message-ID: <4089F79D.6040708@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040424115233.K8432@gamplex.bde.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404231145150.6894-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20040424115233.K8432@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Discussion moved to current@] Bruce Evans wrote: > > At least the -current version of tar skips reading the > data when it is writing to /dev/null. A-ha! That explains a few of the odd timings I've seen. I wonder why it does that? (Other than to look good on benchmarks, of course. ;-) > I believe tar started being too smart under FreeBSD when it was > imported into contrib. Some of my benchmarks became invalid. Care to share some of those benchmarks? I'm especially interested, of course, in the ones that did not become invalid. ;-) Though knowing the ones that did might be informative as well. Generally, I'm looking for good ways to test the performance of bsdtar. As more people use it, I'm getting more questions about performance, and it would be nice to have some vaguely suggestive numbers to share. Most of my tests so far are showing bsdtar to be pretty comparable to gtar speedwise, but my tests are mostly designed just to hammer on specific subsystems. I haven't made much effort to do broad performance testing. I suppose I should drag out my old tape drive, hook it up, and experiment with that. (Though I do get a chuckle out of the idea of "performance testing" using an old SCSI DDS DAT drive. ;-) Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4089F79D.6040708>