Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis <dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org> To: brett@lariat.org Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com, piechota@argolis.org, aaron@namba1.com, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RE: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this? Message-ID: <200210012302.g91N27vU014349@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021001141233.036c0b00@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1 Oct, Brett Glass wrote: > At 01:47 PM 10/1/2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: >> I'm not sure I understand why you are advocating integrating bzip >> into tar. > > Because IPC consumes resources and computing power. Going directly to > zlib makes a lot more sense, IMHO. Compared to the bzip CPU hog, the IPC overhead is lost in the noise. On the other hand, doing this in separate processes allows tar to overlap its I/O with the compression being done by bzip. The approach taken by dump to overlap disk I/O with tape I/O would be better, and an even better approach would be to do this in one process with threads. I'm not volunteering ... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200210012302.g91N27vU014349>