Branches
Articles referencing this project
Comments
[»]
Not able to download Star
by Amol Chikhale - Jul 11th 2008 07:16:30
Hi , I cant download Star from the berlios download ite . Does any mirror
exist?
Thanks
Amol..
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Data corruption
by Wadim Schiller - Oct 3rd 2007 12:45:08
Hi Jörg,
whats up with data corruption? Afio can compress/encrypt each file and
creates then the archive, so if some parts of the archive are broken you
can nevertheless restore rest of this archive. The normal tar.gz tar.bz2
are not so failure tolerant because first is made the tar archive and then
it will be compressed. So what's up with star and data corruption? Would
the whole archive be broken?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Data corruption
by Wadim Schiller - Oct 3rd 2007 13:37:06
... and how star handles (compressed) archives? First compress and then
archive or first archive and then compress?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
star cygwin binaries, compile errors
by Gilden Man - Apr 8th 2006 06:21:32
Where can I find cygwin binaries of star? I'm having problems compiling it
under the latest cygwin.
The error is conflicting types for getline in stdio.h &
include/schilly.h.
This also happens in smake, but commenting out the getline definition in
include/schilly.h allows that to compile. That solution doesn't work for
star tho.
Any ideas?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: star cygwin binaries, compile errors
by Jörg Schilling - Apr 8th 2006 07:27:41
You need to comment out the broken getline definitions in the Cygwin
include files and
to send a bug report to the Cygwin people.
Cygwin ignores POSIX rules by polluting the name space and introducing
incompatible interfaces for names that have been in public use for more
than 20 years.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Direct IO with Star
by FabriceL - Sep 13th 2005 08:15:49
Are you planning to add support for direct IOs to s tar ?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Direct IO with Star
by Jörg Schilling - Jan 27th 2006 05:43:23
> Are you planning to add support for
> direct IOs to s tar ?
I am not sure what you mean...
If this is related to the proproetary
O_DIRECT on Linux, you should know that it
makes file I/O 30% slower than star currently is.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
GNU tar and S tar...
by Mike Kalagan - Oct 1st 2004 03:57:38
I am using gnu tar for system tasks (like package creation on my Slackware
box) and star for tarballs. But it is small problem: I need both. First
because system utilities depends on it and second because it is fast... Hm,
i like star, way it is not mater to use it? And i see some ways: manually
adapt system utilities, ask slackware.com team to adapt them, or add some
kind of "proxy" to s tar, something that can operate and identify
yourself like gnutar but use star for actual operations. Of couse last one
is not a great deal but it may help to use only s tar (not both s tar/gnu
tar) on common GNU/Linux...
P.S. I am sorry if you find my english ugly...
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: GNU tar and S tar...
by Jörg Schilling - Oct 6th 2004 08:36:22
Why do you believe you need GNU tar?
If sytem utilities call the program with
the name "tar" (instead of using "gtar")
and depend on GNU tar specific behavior,
they are broken and should be fixed.
On the other side, star is faster than GNU tar,
wo why would you prefer GNU tar anyway?
The star package includes a "gnutar" program
that is based on star and implements
any feature
of GNU tar that is not broken.
If you like to replace GNU tar by star, either
rename "gnutar" to "gtar" or compile a
"FAT" star
binary and create a link "gtar" to the FAT star
binary.
Note that GNU tar has many deviations from UNIX tar
and that star (or FAT star)
implements
the official TAR behavior
when called as "tar".
If the "gnutar" (non FAT)
binary from star is called "tar" is behaves like GNU tar.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Feature
by J5 - Sep 8th 2003 06:36:23
Is there any way to read patterns from a file ?
Sometimes i need to ignore too many files and the command line becomes
huge!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
How is it compared to tar?
by Jacky Lam - May 31st 2002 11:13:23
I get used to tar under Linux. How is the performance comparsion?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: How is it compared to tar?
by Jörg Schilling - Jun 11th 2002 06:14:12
Linux does not have a real tar command - it comes
with a tar clone
called GNUtar that is ~ 98% compatible to a real tar implementation.
Let us compare star with GNU tar for this reason:
- CPU usage and partially speed depend on the tar format used.
- GNU tar does not support any recent tar format (POSIX.1-1988
- or newer)
With the historic tar format and plain files, star needs
- about 25% less
user CPU time than what GNU tar needs.If you
- compare
wall clock time,
GNU tar and star are roughly of the
- same speed in case you write the output into a file.
- If you archive sparse files (files with holes) and the OS does
not
- include support for backing up
sparse files (like on Linux), then
- star is roughly 4x faster than GNU tar.
- If the OS includes such support (as old Solaris does and FreeBSD
- will do in the near future), star may be up to 100 times faster than
GNU tar.
- If you write to a real tape device things become different.
- A tape needs the data to be delivered at a constant speed.
- If the data from tar comes slower than needed by the tape drive,
- then the drive will constantly
move the media forwards and
- backwards resulting in a low speed and media degradation.
- Star includes a FIFO that bufferes data and is filled up when
- star is easily able
to get the speed and empties when star finds
- parts of the
filesystem that are slow to read.
On a modern OS, Star
- may easily configured to use 128 MB of FIFO. This may cause star to
- be twice as fast as GNU tar
- The remote tape implementation from GNU tar is much slower than
- the remote tape implementation in star.
Star is about 4x faster than
- GNU tar when in remote mode.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: How is it compared to tar?
by Jacky Lam - Jun 11th 2002 06:53:28
Thanks. But I have some queries if you don't mind.
1) I just try star. and find that it is quite compatible to tar. (at
least it can decompress GNUTar files)
2) But what reason make star still lack from most common linux
distribution/ even replace GNUTar?
It is just my interest to know. Thx very much.
Jacky
> Linux does not have a real tar command -
> it comes
> with a tar clone
>
> called GNUtar that is ~ 98% compatible
> to a real tar implementation.
>
>
> Let us compare star with GNU tar for
> this reason:
>
>
> CPU usage and partially speed depend on
> the tar format used.
>
> GNU tar does not support any recent
> tar format (POSIX.1-1988
> or newer)
> With the historic tar format and plain
> files, star needs
> about 25% less
> user CPU time than what GNU tar needs.If
> you compare
> wall clock time,
> GNU tar and star are roughly of the
> same speed in case you write the output
> into a file.
>
>
>
> If you archive sparse files (files
> with holes) and the OS does not
> include support for backing up
> sparse files (like on Linux), then
> star is roughly 4x faster than GNU
> tar.
> If the OS includes such support (as old
> Solaris does and FreeBSD
> will do in the near future), star may
> be up to 100 times faster than GNU tar.
>
>
>
> If you write to a real tape device
> things become different.
> A tape needs the data to be delivered at
> a constant speed.
> If the data from tar comes slower
> than needed by the tape drive,
> then the drive will constantly
> move the media forwards and
> backwards resulting in a low speed and
> media degradation.
> Star includes a FIFO that bufferes data
> and is filled up when
> star is easily able
> to get the speed and empties when
> star finds parts of the filesystem that
> are slow to read.
> On a modern OS, Star
> may easily configured to use 128 MB of
> FIFO. This may cause star to
> be twice as fast as GNU tar
>
>
> The remote tape implementation from
> GNU tar is much slower than
> the remote tape implementation in star.
> Star is about 4x faster than
> GNU tar when in remote mode.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: How is it compared to tar?
by Jörg Schilling - Jun 11th 2002 15:19:00
>
> Thanks. But I have some queries if
> you don't mind.
> 1) I just try star. and find that
> it is quite compatible to tar. (at least
> it can decompress GNUTar files)
Yes, because it knows about GNU tar and it's deviations from the
standard.
> 2) But what reason make star
> still lack from most common linux
> distribution/ even replace GNUTar?
A good question that you should rather ask the
people involved with these distributions...
A big problem seems to be that the LSB board
members did "standardize" _all_ options from
GNU tar to be mantatory for a LSB compliant
system.
This makes it impossible to replace GNU tar in a Linux distribution.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: How is it compared to tar?
by Jacky Lam - Jun 11th 2002 20:31:00
>
> %
> A big problem seems to be that the LSB
> board
> members did "standardize" _all_ options
> from
> GNU tar to be mantatory for a LSB
> compliant
> system.
In this case, I really feel sorry for star. Is it possible to provide
a script or a simulation options to let star to simulate GNUTar so that
user will be easy to adopt star?
Jacky
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: How is it compared to tar?
by Jörg Schilling - Nov 21st 2003 05:10:52
> A big problem seems to be that the LSB
> board
> members did "standardize" _all_ options
> from
> GNU tar to be mantatory for a LSB
> compliant
> system.
I should mention, that LSB did correct itself and
followed the SUSv2 standard.
Star is now far more LSB compliant than GNU tar.
It did not help....
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: How is it compared to tar?
by Grzegorz Jaskiewicz - Jul 1st 2004 06:43:14
> ...
> I should mention, that LSB did correct
> itself and
> followed the SUSv2 standard.
> Star is now far more LSB compliant than
> GNU tar.
> It did not help....
Great work, really. But perhaps you should let more ppl
know that there is tool like that ?
Maybe yyou should start talking to FSF about it. Their
tools are ancient history. Including the fact that there
is no lib/frontend division. Which in case of cpio, tar,
and others would really help.
Btw, does star support sorting by name? extensions ?
this would improve gzip/bzip compression ! why noone
did that yet in GNU world?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Win32 compliancy?!
by Miki - Feb 4th 2002 04:24:51
Freshmeat says star compiles on Win32.
star's win32 README (inside the source tarball) is actually the readme of
cdrecord, not of star. wtf?!
1. *Can* this project compile under win32? (as sourceforge classification
claims) or can it not?
2. what "make" proggie should be used?
Cheers.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Win32 compliancy?!
by Jörg Schilling - Feb 11th 2002 04:17:08
All Schily tools use a unique portability system -
The Schily makefile system. For this reason, all
Schily tools behave similar on all supported platforms.
Star just compiles on Win32 if you did install
Cygwin before. It cannot compile on vanilla Win32
because it is not standard compliant.
Star is the only tar program that supports remote
tape access on Cygwin and in the near future it
will add support to archive and restore DOS file
flags like SYSTEM/HIDDEN/...
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Multivolume support?
by vrenna - Dec 24th 2001 10:36:15
The 'About:' and the README in the distribution mention multivolume
support, but I can't find the option.
Am I just being dense?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Multivolume support?
by Jörg Schilling - Dec 28th 2001 06:54:39
Read the man page and look for the tsize= option.
In the near future there will even be support to
split large single files inside the archive
across multipletape volumes.
[reply]
[top]
|
