duplicity-talk
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Duplicity-talk] Question about the TAR replacement format


From: Elvis Stansvik
Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] Question about the TAR replacement format
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 23:16:49 +0200

2014-06-09 17:33 GMT+02:00 Elvis Stansvik <address@hidden>:
Hi all,

I got interested in the archive format described at [1].

Is there still an interest in developing this format further and eventually replacing the use of TAR in Duplicity?

I have no particular experience with archive formats, but I have a couple of questions (some of which may be dumb):

* Is the inner index file (the one containing repeated metadata) supposed to come after the inner data file? I've attached a full diagram of the format to show the order of things. Is it correct?

* Why the division into such small (<= 65k) blocks at the outer level? Why not let each block at the outer level contain an entire inner data/index pair?

Disregard what I said about <= 65k here. I obviously misread 16 bytes as 16 bits in the proposal :) But I still wonder why not have one outer block == one inner data + index.

Elvis


* The notes says: "Archive footer: Must contain all information in the header, in case the header is lost.". When would the header get lost?

* Would it not be useful to have some blocks compressed and some not (those corresponding to already compressed files)?

I saw in the archives that a few years ago someone suggested maybe using XAR [2], but got no response. Could that be an alternative or is there something missing that Duplicity would need? The XAR format seems quite badly documented though..

Best regards,
Elvis Stansvik



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]