From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 24 14:08:18 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 05FD316A4CE; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B5EA443D2F; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i3OL7b7E056981;
	Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200404242107.i3OL7b7E056981@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: richardcoleman@mindspring.com
In-Reply-To: <408A9093.2050409@mindspring.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: kientzle@FreeBSD.org
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
cc: julian@elischer.org
Subject: Re: 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
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:08:18 -0000

On 24 Apr, Richard Coleman wrote:
> Don Lewis 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. ;-)
>> 
>> 
>> This speeds up Amanda quite a bit.  Amanda will run tar with the
>> --totals option as well as other options to specify either full or
>> incremental backups multiple times for each file system that it backs
>> up.  It does this to plan the best mixture of full and incremental
>> backups.  If tar actually read the data from disk each time, the
>> planning phase would take a *lot* longer, and would thrash the disk a
>> lot more.
> 
> Until libarchive gets support for sparse files, it's probably better to 
> stick with gtar or rdump with Amanda.

The incremental backup capabilities that gtar has would be a lot more
useful for Amanda than sparse file support.

> But the concept of a version of Amanda that natively uses libarchive is 
> very cool.  It seems like a natural target.

Especially with ACL support.