Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:09:31 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Ian FREISLICH <if@hetzner.co.za> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: NEW TAR Message-ID: <20040723110931.GB41806@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <E1Bncom-000BdL-00@hetzner.co.za> References: <200407211622.i6LGMZrm040478@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <E1Bncom-000BdL-00@hetzner.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > Garrett Wollman wrote: > > <<On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:14:27 +0200, Daniel Lang <dl@leo.org> said: > > > > > I do not see, why it is important if the original file was sparse > > > at all or maybe in different places. > > > > You've never run out of disk space as a result of a sparse file > > becoming non-sparse? > > So, are you arguing for or against tar converting files into sparse > files where it can as Daniel proposes? There is no arguing on that, since tar conversion is non-default, by -S option. > How does dump handle sparse files? dump handle them as sparse by default, no disk overflow. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040723110931.GB41806>