[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: IDE/ATAPI in 2.5
>From: Tomas Szepe <>

>> >A Pentium 1200, eh?
>> >More like Pentium 120 or star just doesn't cut it.
>> star uses less CPU time than GNU tar. As GNU tar uses a proprietary
>> archive format, I never use it if I may avoid to use it.

>How does this relate to the test? I got the archive directly off your
>ftp site -> the software has been dealing with exactly the same format
>in both cases.

Well. it took me only 8 years of repeated bug reports to make the GNU tar
maintaners fix the worst problems so it is finally able to extract standard
compliant tar archives ;-).

As recent GNU tar is still unable to _list_ those tar files correctly
I would never trust GNU tar. A program that behaves inconsistent in
list vs. extract mode is not what I like to use.

The real problem of GNU tar is that is does still not create POSIX.1-1988
compliantarchives while star is able to create POSIX.1-2001 archives for a year.
This causes that many archives out on ftp servgers cannot be unpacked using
compliant implementations.

To understand the problem, please fetch a recent star distribution and use the
contained program 'tartest' together with

and the instructions in:

to find the POSIX deviations in GNU tar.

>> >Athlon 1GHz:
>> >kala@nibbler:/tmp/1$ time tar xjf rock.tar.bz2
>> >real 3m19.703s
>> >user 0m9.870s
>> >sys 0m24.840s
>> >According to top, the system was ~90% idle during the extraction.
>> >Linux 2.4.19-rc1-ac3, reiserfs 3.6.
>> Well, I wrote that this has been done with ext3 (I also checked ext2
>> which is approx. the same speed.
>> I don't have access to a reiserfs system that has not been compiled
>> with debug and I don't like to put out false statements.

>I honestly doubt ext3 would perform significantly worse than what I've
>observed with reiserfs.

Just try it, I did try it.

>Never mind, however, the sole aim of my having tested the extraction of
>rock.tar.bz2 was to show how easily you get to accuse people on lkml of
>being incompetent w/o having any real support for your claims.

It was (as I mentioned before) to show that there need to be some sort
of high level coordination to make Linux better and address the needs of the

>> >PS. Solaris is over 60% slower than Linux 2.2/2.4 in common fs
>> >operations on my SMP SPARCstation 10.
>> If you make such statements, it would help a lot of you would mention
>> the Solaris version you are running. I am always running a recent
>> Solaris beta kernel - you may have used an outdated version.

>Umm, let's see if I can fish out the install media from somewhere...
>jup, Solaris 2.6 5/98.

So did you compare Solaris performance with a 4 year old Linux?

Jörg (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.063 / U:26.716 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site