1 |
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 15:38:22 Joerg Schilling wrote: |
2 |
> Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> > or something like this with star: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > star -copy -p -xdot -xattr -H=exustar -sparse -M -C /home . |
6 |
> > /mnt/new_partition |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > (You can use -V -pat=File1 to exclude files or directories with star, use |
9 |
> > the -M option to avoid following mount points). |
10 |
> |
11 |
> star -copy by default uses the star "-dump" format which is the "exustar" |
12 |
> format + extended dump metadata. There is no need to specify the archive |
13 |
> format with star -copy. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Also note that star by default uses a safe extract method that calls |
16 |
> fsync(2) at the end of each single file extract. This is the only way for |
17 |
> star for being able to detect all possible extract problems. On Linux, the |
18 |
> file system buffer cache is implemented in a very inefficient way and with |
19 |
> some COW filesystems (like ZFS), a fsync(2) is an expensive instruction. |
20 |
> In such cases, you may call star with the -no-fsync option and switch star |
21 |
> to the same level of "safeness" as other software to speed up the extract |
22 |
> or copy operation. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> So if you are on Linux and use star -no-fsync, you will not be less secure |
25 |
> than other software but get aprox. 20% better performance than with other |
26 |
> copy methods. |
27 |
|
28 |
Thanks for this Jörg, |
29 |
|
30 |
I had noticed a small overhead compared to tar and guessed that this may be |
31 |
because start undertakes a more thorough check of data. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Regards, |
35 |
Mick |