Re: Perfomance problem backupscript (more details and tests)

Les Mikesell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 08:25, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > tar -Gxpvf ../tar0.out
> > > tar -Gpxvf ../tar1.out
> > > cd ..
> > > diff -r test rest
> > > ---
> > > Mine are identical - rest/b and contents are gone, rest/e and
> > > contents are present. 
>
> > I said that GNU tar fails with _simple_ test cases, but you did use 
> > an extremely trivial case. Just follow the instructions I did send a few days 
> > ago.
>
> This test was a response to your statement (which was just above
> but you deleted it):
>  "There are many other problems with incrementals using GNU tar.
>   GNU tar does absolutey not grok the case when a directory is
>   renamed......"
>
> The point of that test was to show that GNU tar does handle
> renamed directories correctly with --listed-incremental.

It definitely does _not_.

Try to get the most recent release (1.15.1) compile it by your own
and follow the instructions I did send out last week.


> > I did always check the latest versionof GNU tar.
>
> The latest from the developers is often not what you
> really want to run.  How about one as currently included
> in a well-tested distribution?

So why do _you_ run GNU tar versions made from internal unpublished
developer files?

Please be fair and compare the latest GNU tar version with the latest
star version.


Jörg

-- 
 EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       [email protected]		(uni)  
       [email protected]	(work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily