Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!tekcrl!tekirl!keithe
From: keithe@tekirl.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Comparison of compaction routines
Message-ID: <1343@tekirl.TEK.COM>
Date: 27 Apr 88 17:31:25 GMT
References: <483@csccat.UUCP> <10564@steinmetz.ge.com> <669@omen.UUCP>
Reply-To: keithe@tekirl.UUCP (Keith Ericson)
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 22
Keywords: good data, bad (biased) conclusion

In article <669@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:
< I ran some [timimg] comparisions on a 157741 ASCII (shar archive)
< file.
...
< Program(s)
< (tar cvf baz rzsz.sh;compress baz)
< zoo a foo rzsz.sh
< arc a foo rzsz.sh
< compress rzsz.sh
< compress -b13 rzsz.sh

A crucial feature missing from this comparison is the ability (or lack
thereof) of the particular program(s) to retain a directory structure in
the compressed result. Tar does it by itself; zoo can do it when used
in conjunction with "stuff" (or at least that's what the documentation
tells me); another combination would be "find" coupled with "cpio" and
"compress" which would also retain the directory structure.

For my money this is the primary failing of arc. Consequently I plan
to use zoo whenever necessary. It works - well - on both MSDOS and UNIX.

keith