Don Lewis wrote: >>>At least the -current version of tar skips reading the >>>data when it is writing to /dev/null. >> >>A-ha! That explains a few of the odd timings I've seen. >>I wonder why it does that? (Other than to look good on >>benchmarks, of course. ;-) > > > This speeds up Amanda quite a bit. Amanda will run tar with the > --totals option as well as other options to specify either full or > incremental backups multiple times for each file system that it backs > up. It does this to plan the best mixture of full and incremental > backups. If tar actually read the data from disk each time, the > planning phase would take a *lot* longer, and would thrash the disk a > lot more. Until libarchive gets support for sparse files, it's probably better to stick with gtar or rdump with Amanda. But the concept of a version of Amanda that natively uses libarchive is very cool. It seems like a natural target. Richard Coleman richardcoleman_at_mindspring.comReceived on Sat Apr 24 2004 - 07:06:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:52 UTC