Sean Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Paul E Condon <pecondon <at> mesanetworks.net> writes: > > > > The difference is that afio compresses each input file individually, so > > if there is a read/write error, only one file is lost from the archive. > > I have one final question: some people have brought up the strength of > programs like afio that compress files individually to protect against > corruption. Most of the things I archive are large image or movie files > (which typically don't compress well). I read through most of both > tar's and afio's man pages, and afio seems to have some interesting > features (like the ability to seek to blocks in an archive). If I > am not compressing the archive, does afio and/or cpio still have > benefits that make it more appealing than tar?
afio does notice that certain file types are already compressed and doesn't bother trying to compress them again. You can also choose a minimum file size to compress (if little will be gained from compressing it). And, -P lets you choose the compression program. I use bzip2. I've seen others pipe it through gpg for encryption. I've been using afio for close to a decade and never lost anything, but I'm sure others can say the same for tar. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292 - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
