Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site geowhiz.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!phri!pesnta!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!uwvax!geowhiz!lm From: lm@geowhiz.UUCP (Larry McVoy) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: tar.c & blocksize Message-ID: <203@geowhiz.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 00:28:01 EDT Article-I.D.: geowhiz.203 Posted: Fri Jul 5 00:28:01 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 05:37:20 EDT Distribution: net Organization: UW Madison, Geology Dept. Lines: 16 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MIND *** I was playing around with tape drives and discovered that a larger blocksize meant faster throughput, so I upped the NBLOCK define in tar.c to 127 (the most blocks our cipher can handle). The results were pretty good, I went from 38 minutes to 18 minutes when dumping about 35 meg. My question is this: is it asking for trouble to play with the NBLOCK definition in tar.c? Some people here have raised the question of compatability, ie. what about other sites, what if they don't have source and/or can't get a hacked version of tar? On the other hand, it seems that the savings in time are great enough to warrent a change. If you have an opinion on this, I'd like to here it. -Larry McVoy [ARPA] mcvoy@wisc-rsch.arpa [UUCP] ...!uwvax!geowhiz!lm