From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 23 22:14:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B40E16A4CE for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.snvacaid.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9DE43D58 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:14:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from freebsd.org (p54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i3O5E890092665; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:14:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4089F79D.6040708@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:14:05 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20031006 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Evans References: <20040424115233.K8432@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20040424115233.K8432@gamplex.bde.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Julian Elischer Subject: Testing Tar (was Re: bad news for bsdtar..) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 05:14:42 -0000 [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