News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Xz format inadequate for long-term archiving by jl6 on Saturday October 22, 2016 @01:28PM (#12769585)
Doesn't one typically write to tape drives with tar, rather than writing a raw file?
Re:Xz format inadequate for long-term archiving by LukeShu on Saturday October 22, 2016 @01:44PM (#12769667)
Indeed. This is why the tar format explicitly allows garbage data at the end. So then people started pondering all of the nifty or clever things they could do with tar files. And they didn't want to give it up when they started compressing the tar files.
Re:Xz format inadequate for long-term archiving by zeta0134 on Sunday October 23, 2016 @12:57AM (#12772037)
Couldn't you just reverse the order then, and create an xz.tar? Maybe I don't understand the benefit of taring the data first.
Re:Xz format inadequate for long-term archiving by wojcech on Sunday October 23, 2016 @06:52AM (#12772954)
Tar is just bundling into a single file AFAIK. There is a slight benefit depending on your compression tool to tar and then compress, because (AFAIK again)some tools compress files individually and then write them into a hierarchical file(I guess this is what xz does as well, since it's searchable?). If you tar first, these tools will work better, since they encode patterns found in all files instead if doing it per file(which means e.g. if there is a header once per file, that will get compressed in the tar.comorpress, not in the . compress)
Re:Xz format inadequate for long-term archiving by baruch on Monday October 24, 2016 @07:19AM (#12777921)
I've created sortedtar Brewster if this assumption and while it is correct tree benefit is mostly negligible except for some edge cases.