saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (07/13/89)
In article <3622@hall.cray.com>, rosenkra@hall.cray.com (Bill Rosenkranz) writes: > > nothing is more frustrating than getting a tar tape with absolute path names > ("hey, guy...maybe i DON'T have 20 MB available in /"). fortunately, there > are remedies on a unix system but this could be a problem with zoo... > -bill There were some tools for fixing messed-up tar files posted to either comp. sources.unix, comp.sources.misc or one of their fore-runners a while back. I had a damaged tar file with precious stuff, so I compiled and used them. Absolutely no problems. I didn't think there was any interest, so I didn't post them, but if (say) 3 people email me I will. Steve J. saj@chinet.chi.il.us
jg@hpldola.HP.COM (Joe Gilray) (07/15/89)
I've seen many people report that ZOO is "just as efficient on storage, if not marginally better than ARC". I tried several tests using ARC and ZOO to create various sized archives of various file types. ARC always used SLIGHTLY less space than ZOO (I'm talking 0.75% less space here). ZOO was always quite a bit faster though, 30 to 40 % faster usually. -Joe Gilray