From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 12 13:30:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D4B16A41C for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:30:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D0843D46 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:30:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [82.41.37.55] ([82.41.37.55]) by smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:30:55 +0100 Message-ID: <42D3C5E3.4060101@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:30:11 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050530 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Sherman, Michael \(GE Energy\)" References: <9CC5C6311E4BBB45BF135CAF2B9B6DB4014AC60E@SCHMLVEM04.e2k.ad.ge.com> In-Reply-To: <9CC5C6311E4BBB45BF135CAF2B9B6DB4014AC60E@SCHMLVEM04.e2k.ad.ge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2005 13:30:55.0976 (UTC) FILETIME=[EEAB3E80:01C586E5] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tar or gtar X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:30:14 -0000 Sherman, Michael (GE Energy) wrote: >Hi all. > >I am running 5.3. I noticed that by default the BSD tar is used. Are there any advantages of gtar over tar? If so which ones? Also which compression switch is more efficient -z or -Z ? > > It depends what you need. If you need command-line argument compatibility with some other hosts, then gtar is better since it will install pretty much everywhere (and is the default on e.g. Linux). Or if gtar does something that BSD tar doesn't (incremental "backups", maybe? who knows what other bloat). Otherwise, I have never found any specific disadvantage to BSD tar. You can easily have both and the actual tar files should be compatible. --Alex