|
Home > Archive > Backup Software > August 2004 > tar question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Wilfried Kern 2004-08-02, 5:45 pm |
| For several reasons I would like to do a backup from a Windows XP
machine to a Linux box using tar. The GnuWin32 tar works fine, however,
without the -z option which compresses files with gzip. Does anybody
have experience and hints with that?
- Wilfried
| |
| Toshi1873 2004-08-03, 5:46 pm |
| In article <2n7d8mFtc6dcU1@uni-berlin.de>, newsgroup-
only@news.com says...
> For several reasons I would like to do a backup from a Windows XP
> machine to a Linux box using tar. The GnuWin32 tar works fine, however,
> without the -z option which compresses files with gzip. Does anybody
> have experience and hints with that?
I've piped the output of tar through bzip2 before.
Don't know that there's an advantage of doing it that
way or not.
tar -cv * | bzip2 -9 > file.tar.bz2
Speeds (AthlonXP 2600+, PC2700 DDR333)
2.85GB (10:53 to 11:41, 48min, 60.8 MB/min)
2.17GB (10:34 to 11:09, 35min, 63.5 MB/min)
8.49GB (11:12 to 13:30, 138min, 63.0 MB/min)
7.80GB (2:20 to 5:13, 173min, 46 MB/min, lots of small
files)
4.42GB (3:15 to 4:28, 73min, 62 MB/min)
0.85GB (8:55 to 9:09, 14min, 62 MB/min)
1.06GB (9:15 to 9:34,. 19min, 57 MB/min)
Another alternative for you is to do an rsync instead
from the WinXP box to the linux box. That requires
either running rsync in daemon mode on the linux box or
use ssh+rsync.
| |
| Wilfried Kern 2004-08-04, 7:45 am |
| Thank you very much for your hint. Piping is working great.
One interesting experiment:
For test purposes I used my download directory with all kinds of files, some already compressed, some plain.
Here are the resusults:
Option: tar-file size time
plain tar 232 120 320 2:09 min
tar+gzip 213 719 020 1:28 min
tar+bzip2 -9 214 218 791 6:27 min
Seems that bzip2 is very slow and in this case even compressing less than gzip.
ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION:
Do you know a method to tar (write) directly to a tape on the Linux machine?. So far I'm using Samba to write the tar file on the Linux machine. This, however, works for writing to disk only.
- Wilfried
| |
| hal@nospam.com 2004-08-05, 7:45 am |
| On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 14:27:55 +0200, "Wilfried Kern"
<newsgroup-only@news.com> wrote:
>Thank you very much for your hint. Piping is working great.
>
>One interesting experiment:
>For test purposes I used my download directory with all kinds of files, some already compressed, some plain.
>Here are the resusults:
>
>Option: tar-file size time
>plain tar 232 120 320 2:09 min
>tar+gzip 213 719 020 1:28 min
>tar+bzip2 -9 214 218 791 6:27 min
>
>Seems that bzip2 is very slow and in this case even compressing less than gzip.
>
>ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION:
>
>Do you know a method to tar (write) directly to a tape on the Linux machine?. So far I'm using Samba to write the tar file on the Linux machine. This, however, works for writing to disk only.
>
You can use the device definition for your tape drive as the
destination for your tar command. See man tar.
Hal
>- Wilfried
| |
| Toshi1873 2004-08-05, 5:45 pm |
| In article <2nc32sFv9pk2U1@uni-berlin.de>, newsgroup-
only@news.com says...
> Thank you very much for your hint. Piping is working great.
>
> One interesting experiment:
> For test purposes I used my download directory with all kinds of files, some already compressed, some plain.
> Here are the resusults:
>
> Option: tar-file size time
> plain tar 232 120 320 2:09 min
> tar+gzip 213 719 020 1:28 min
> tar+bzip2 -9 214 218 791 6:27 min
>
> Seems that bzip2 is very slow and in this case even compressing less than gzip.
>
I was using bzip2 more because it seems like all of the
open source packages seem to be using for packaging.
|
|
|
|
|