From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Mar 29 04:22:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA23505 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:22:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (root@Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA [132.206.78.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA23500 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:22:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA15874; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 07:22:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 07:22:10 -0500 (EST) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <199703291222.HAA15874@Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> To: cgd@cs.cmu.edu, darrenr@cyber.com.au, hackers@FreeBSD.org, port-i386@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Dilemma. how to store DOS directories ? Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >>> [tar/cpio "writes individual files to tape"] >> I have no clue what you're talking about here, at least with respect >> to tar. A tar tape is a stream of 512-byte blocks, reblocked >> depending on the blocking factor, typically reblocked to 10K blocks. >> This is true regardless of where file boundaries fall. > EOF markers being written to the tape, the lack of indexing and the > resulting "awkwardness" of its use. One EOF marker is written per _tape_ file, which means one per tar archive. Not one per archived file...unless you are really bizarre and put each file in its own tar archive on the tape, which would be difficult to do, pointless, and (as you point out) wasteful. der Mouse mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B