Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:37:29 +0100 | From | Padraig Brady <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.44-[mm3, ac2] time to tar zxf kernel tarball compared forvarious |
| |
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> writes: > >>simple tests like this. We recently ran into one with tar recognizing >>that it was writing to /dev/null, and optimizing for it. > > As stated in the info document. It is there for a reason (Amanda). > > --- cut --- > When the archive is being created to `/dev/null', GNU `tar' tries to > minimize input and output operations. The Amanda backup system, when > used with GNU `tar', has an initial sizing pass which uses this feature. > --- cut ---
IMHO /dev/null shouldn't be used for this. What's wrong with Amanda doing: ln -s /dev/null /dev/drop Then optimizing tars can use /dev/drop to not write() and non-optimizing tars will still work as expected?
Pádraig.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |