Re: Perfomance problem backupscript (more details and tests)

On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 06:14, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> > 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.

My test script works the same and duplicates the contents of the
renamed directory with 1.15.1.  I can't use your instructions because
they refer to files you don't include.  I followed it enough to
see that there is still a bug somewhere regarding files in a
full that are replaced by a directory of the same name or vice
versa, but I'll have to simplify it to pin down exactly what.
I still don't regard this as any worse than mishandling a
directory that becomes a mount point or vice versa between
runs.

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 So why do _you_ run GNU tar versions made from internal unpublished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

I don't.  I run versions that are published along with the already
well-known fixes of bugs found in wide use.  For example, the copy at 
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/4/SRPMS/
tar-1.15.1-10.FC4.src.rpm
contains 7 patches, including one for the bug you wasted your time
describing about sparse file totals.

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

A fair comparison requires an equally widely tested version of star.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    [email protected]