Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:43:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> To: kientzle@FreeBSD.org Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Testing Tar (was Re: bad news for bsdtar..) Message-ID: <200404240743.i3O7hl7E053216@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <408A09D1.2090007@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 Apr, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Don Lewis wrote: >> On 23 Apr, Tim Kientzle wrote: >>>Bruce Evans wrote: >>> >>>>At least the -current version of tar skips reading the >>>>data when it is writing to /dev/null. >>> >>>I wonder why it does that? >> >> This speeds up Amanda quite a bit. Amanda will run tar with the >> --totals option ... to plan the best mixture of full and incremental >> backups. > > Hmmm... How accurate does such information need to be? For use by Amanda, not terribly accurate. Amanda archives are generally done with compression, but the estimate is done without compression and Amanda then calculates the compressed archive size based on the historical compression ratio. There will obviously be a lot of uncertainty in this, but hopefully not so much as to cause Amanda to underestimate the amount of tape needed, which might cause it to run out of space before the backup is complete. Any sort of systemic error in the estimate would probably get compensated for when Amanda calculated the compression ratio. On the other hand, it does look bad if you archive to a file and the output of --totals doesn't match the archive file size. > Getting accurate estimates out of bsdtar could be tricky. > (Either bsdtar needs to know a lot more about archive formats > than it does right now, or libarchive needs to have a way > to export this kind of information.) > > Tim >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200404240743.i3O7hl7E053216>