Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu!petersen
From: petersen@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (Paul Petersen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Archivers
Message-ID: <1989Oct16.034930.27434@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 89 03:49:30 GMT
References: <1737@nigel.udel.EDU>
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Reply-To: petersen@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (Paul Petersen)
Organization: Center for Supercomputing R&D (Cedar), U. of Ill.
Lines: 35

In article <1737@nigel.udel.EDU> jones@uv4.eglin.af.mil (Calvin Jones, III) writes:
>Terminal Entry <aliu@ohe-sun2.usc.edu> writes:
>
>>PS: Why don't people use entire-disk archivers when archiving a program
>>    that's a full disk, instead of making our life harder with zoo?  -> ;)
>
>ZOO has the capability to archive an entire disk, retaining the complete 
>directory structure within the archive.  The archive should then be 
>expanded with the X// switch to create the original structure.
>

I've done this with several disk I've put up for anonymous FTP, and I
almost always get requests to break up the file into more "manageable"
chunks such as 250K or less per file.  The rational usually is a
less than perfect tcp/ip link or the need to only get one archive member
or the use of disk quotas on the receiving end that preclude transfering
large amounts.  It seems similar reasons would apply to other places
such as BBSs.

-Paul Petersen

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

    UUCP:    {uunet,convex}!uiucuxc!uicsrd!petersen
    INTERNET: petersen@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu


University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

    UUCP:    {uunet,convex}!uiucuxc!uicsrd!petersen
    ARPANET: petersen%uicsrd@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
    CSNET:   petersen%uicsrd@uiuc.csnet
    BITNET:  petersen@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu