Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
The problem is that the entire archive is compressed, and not the
[snip]
No, it is not. Please speak of what you know, rather than
what you conjecture.[1]
Are you saying that this is not how compressed tar archives are
No. What you stated (most of which I cut) is that the reason
it is so time consuming is that it must decompress the compressed
archive. While that may add to the time, it is not THE PROBLEM
for why it takes so long to append to an archive, as you stated.
[snip]
Try the same thing with the archives compressed, and let me know how
long it takes.
I do not claim that it would not take longer. It probably would.
But taking two minutes per addition of directory for 30+
directories is not acceptable, anyway. So the test is irrelevant.
Even without compression it takes too long.
[snip]
Well, tar was created for use with tape drives, with limited to no
seek capabilities. It may well be seeking from the start of the
[snip]
Of course. That's why I wrote what I did.
From the results you are seeing, it would appear that you are using
the wrong tool for the job you are trying to do.
No, it runs adequately fast when not appending. You might go back
and read my OP.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
