Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:03:26 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: "Sherman, Michael (GE Energy)" <michael.sherman@og.ge.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tar or gtar Message-ID: <20050712120326.GA29851@beatrix.daedalusnetworks.priv> In-Reply-To: <9CC5C6311E4BBB45BF135CAF2B9B6DB4014AC60E@SCHMLVEM04.e2k.ad.ge.com> References: <9CC5C6311E4BBB45BF135CAF2B9B6DB4014AC60E@SCHMLVEM04.e2k.ad.ge.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2005-07-12 07:48, "Sherman, Michael (GE Energy)" <michael.sherman@og.ge.com> wrote: > Hi all. > > I am running 5.3. I noticed that by default the BSD tar is used. Are > there any advantages of gtar over tar? If so which ones? The most important advantage is that it is BSD licensed. > Also which compression switch is more efficient -z or -Z ? Hmmm, I'm not sitting on FreeBSD, but looking at the manpage I can only see -y (bzip2 compression) and -z (gzip compression); I couldn't find an option called -Z. The relative merits or disadvantages of gzip vs. bzip2 compression are described in a couple of short comparisons I did a while back, so you may want to read these: http://keramida.serverhive.com/weblog/archives/2005-05-17/bzip2-seems-slightly-better-than-gzip-for-email-compression http://keramida.serverhive.com/weblog/archives/2005-05-19/gzip-vs-bzip2-on-large-files
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050712120326.GA29851>