GNU Tar vs. dump (The faster one wins...maybe)

Article View: gnu.misc.discuss

Article #73410

#73410

From: Daniel R. Guilderson
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1991 02:45

9 lines
1275 bytes

I guess dump should be faster than tar because presumably it reads the
raw device rather than the block device.  I haven't read the code for
either program so I don't even know that this is true.  Has anyone
tested gnutar against dump?  Which is faster?  It could be that the
bottle-neck is at the tape device and so it doesn't make a damn bit of
difference which program you use.

PS For my money, gnutar w/tar-mode beats dump/restore in the user
interface department.  dump is a fu*king pain!

Technical Details

Message-ID: <RYAN.91Sep18214519@ra.cs.umb.edu>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!unidui!math.fu-berlin.de!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!hsdndev!cs!cs.umb.edu!ryan

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1020c6,66f33e9595eb5c16,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid1020c6,public
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,66f33e9595eb5c16,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-09-19 05:03:22 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!unidui!math.fu-berlin.de!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!hsdndev!cs!cs.umb.edu!ryan
From: ryan@ra.cs.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.admin
Subject: GNU Tar vs. dump (The faster one wins...maybe)
Message-ID: <RYAN.91Sep18214519@ra.cs.umb.edu>
Date: 19 Sep 91 02:45:19 GMT
Sender: news@cs.umb.edu (netnews)
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston
Lines: 9
Nntp-Posting-Host: ra.cs.umb.edu