From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 12 00:42:29 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651D516A400 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:42:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.snvacaid.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4532E13C455 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:42:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.0.0.222] (p54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l2C0gS24096698; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:42:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <45F4A1F4.4060703@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:42:28 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060422 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <200703111036.l2BAaha6031394@repoman.freebsd.org> <45F46291.4090209@freebsd.org> <20070312001026.GA20000@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20070312001026.GA20000@xor.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDtar performance vs GNUtar (Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/tar Makefile bsdtar.c bsdtar.h bsdtar_platform.h config_freebsd.h getdate.y matching.c read.c tree.c util.c write.c src/usr.bin/tar/test config.sh test-acl.sh test-basic.sh test-deep-dir.sh test-flags.sh test-nodump.sh ...) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:42:29 -0000 >>Bsdtar should now be considerably faster than before. >>I'd appreciate any feedback ... > > The first archive was created with bsdtar (tar cvf ports.tar ports) > which made gtar bitch a bit .... Which version of gtar were you using? In my testing, there's a small but definite slowdown from gtar 1.13 to 1.15 to 1.16. > ... gtar bitch a bit about unknown options (SCHILY.*) ... bsdtar should probably warn about unknown options as well; I'll have to look into that. (It's a little tricky because libarchive is set up to only return one error for any one operation. I might have to generalize that.) Now that gtar is following standards, I wonder if they'll adopt some of the extensions developed by other people? (Such as Joerg Schilling's solid work on integrating file flags and ACL support into pax format.) Tim Kientzle