On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:38:56PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > Would the overhead be significant even if the tarball wasn't compressed? > > I don't understand enough about tar's concatenate and delete performance > > to risk a guess. > > tar's default internal blocksize is 512 bytes, so there would still be > overhead but it would be less. I don't think tar really supports > random access though, since tar files are sequential and monolithic; > having many tarballs instead of just one may be better.
I don't know for sure if it does, but man tar does show --concatenate and --delete options so I think there's something there. Whether or not that's fast is another matter <wink> -- Christian Robottom Reis | [+55] 16 9112 6430 | http://launchpad.net/~kiko Linaro Engineering VP | [ +1] 612 216 4935 | http://async.com.br/~kiko _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
