From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 62643 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2016 16:42:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 62630 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jan 2016 16:42:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:ed7dd33, H*f:sk:1211985, H*i:sk:1211985, she X-HELO: lb3-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net (HELO lb3-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net) (194.109.24.30) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:42:35 +0000 Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.195]) by smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net with ESMTP id 9UiX1s00L4CYHle01UiX1B; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:42:31 +0100 Received: from a83-162-234-136.adsl.xs4all.nl ([83.162.234.136]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:42:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:25:00 -0000 From: Houder To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: snapshots (archive files) are too big ... Why? In-Reply-To: <1211985131.20160123172147@yandex.ru> References: <1211985131.20160123172147@yandex.ru> Message-ID: X-Sender: houder@xs4all.nl (jIYHj8nTyMTtoQwPNUbIaQ==) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00315.txt.bz2 Hi Andrey, On 2016-01-23 15:21, Andrey Repin wrote: > But this is actually a problem. Not sure ...extraction appears NOT to be a problem ... (yes, the same file is extracted multiple times). On the other hand, the "big" archive file might indicate there is room for improvement ... However, it might be so that the person who wrote the script believes that she/he can only rely on Lamport's clock: The "version" of the file, that survives the extraction process, will be the one that was last appended to the archive file ... http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/manual/tar.html#SEC59 See 4.2.2.2 Multiple Members with the Same Name. Of course, I am just guessing ... that is why I wrote: I am curious. Regards, Henri -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple