From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 7 01:20:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from green.homeunix.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C9C16A4CE; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 01:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (green@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.homeunix.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i378KDoP066199; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 04:20:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green@green.homeunix.org) Message-Id: <200404070820.i378KDoP066199@green.homeunix.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Tim Kientzle In-Reply-To: Message from Tim Kientzle of "Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:14:48 PDT." <4072F398.5040709@kientzle.com> From: "Brian F. Feldman" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 04:20:13 -0400 Sender: green@green.homeunix.org cc: Ruslan Ermilov cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/tar Makefile bsdtar.1 bsdtar.c bsdtar.h bsdtar_platform.h matching.c read.c util.c write.c X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:20:14 -0000 Tim Kientzle wrote: > Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 02:32:18PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > > > >>kientzle 2004/04/05 14:32:18 PDT > >> > >> FreeBSD src repository > >> > >> Added files: > >> usr.bin/tar Makefile bsdtar.1 bsdtar.c bsdtar.h > >> bsdtar_platform.h matching.c read.c > >> util.c write.c > >> Log: > >> Initial commit for bsdtar. > >> > > > > Awesome! Are there some benchmarking results available? > > I haven't focused very closely on performance yet, to be honest, though > the internal architecture is pretty clean (minimal data copying; > reuse of internal buffers to avoid heap thrashing). > > I did some quick tests early on and the performance (on dearchiving) > was roughly comparable to gnutar. (Within about 5-10%.) That will > improve some as I continue to work on it. However, in general, > I expect it to be a little bit slower because the compression > isn't handled in a separate process (thus there's less overlapping > of I/O and computation). What if you do compression as a worker thread? I don't know how performance compares, but proof of concept is: Good job on bsdtar and libarchive! I'm curious if you're trying to make tar -t output in the same long format as GNU tar -- it appears to have link count, but not the year part of the date. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\