Images, apt-get clean and friends

[Christian Robottom Reis]

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