Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:37:00 +0200 From: Ian FREISLICH <if@hetzner.co.za> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Daniel Lang <dl@leo.org> Subject: Re: NEW TAR Message-ID: <E1Bncom-000BdL-00@hetzner.co.za> In-Reply-To: Message from Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200407211622.i6LGMZrm040478@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? I have heard stories about D.O.S. attacking backups by creating a large sparse file that would be backed up using tar. Daniel's proposal would be a boon in this instance. How does dump handle sparse files? Ian -- Ian Freislich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1Bncom-000BdL-00>