Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!nixhhs!andreas
From: andreas@nixhhs.UUCP (Andreas Wettengel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Cpio vs. Tar
Keywords: which is better?
Message-ID: <1321@nixhhs.UUCP>
Date: 28 Aug 90 06:44:39 GMT
References: <2627@unccvax.uncc.edu> <653@philica.ica.philips.nl>
Organization: Nixdorf Computer AG, Hamburg
Lines: 24

In article <653@philica.ica.philips.nl> adrie@beitel.ica.philips.nl (Adrie Koolen) writes:
>In article <2627@unccvax.uncc.edu> cs00chs@unccvax.uncc.edu (charles spell) writes:
>>I noticed that cpio produces much larger archive files than tar.
>>
>>What would be some advantages of using cpio instead of tar?
>
>That's strange. Tar uses very inefficient and large headers.

Both of you are correct (:-). Cpio is inefficient when encountering
links. Each file is put on the archive, regardless if it has already
been put there as another (linked) file. When files are extracted, links
are recognized. Tar recognizes links at the time the archive is produced.

> When not using the `c' and the `B' options, the cpio file was only
>107KB.
The 'B' option only affects the 'write' command; no padding is done except
on the last block (512 vs. 5120 bytes).


-- 
Andreas Wettengel		| Nixdorf Computer AG
Tel. +49 40/6371-2423		| Ueberseering 33
(...uunet!)unido!nixhhs!andreas	| 2000 Hamburg 60
    NERV: nixhhs!andreas.eunet	| West Germany