4 ms·
The reason I'm a RAR fan is because TAR failed me multiple times! (The first one was ~21 years ago. I lost most of my home.tar.gz-Backup. Because tar has no ind
by noAnswer 5y ago
The reason I'm a RAR fan is because TAR failed me multiple times! (The first one was ~21 years ago. I lost most of my home.tar.gz-Backup. Because tar has no index, if something bad comes along, everything after that can't be read.) 17 years ago, I took a deep dive into rar and replaced my tar.gz backup process with it. I had a cronjob that checked the tar.gz-Backups from the past week and there was a 50% change of "Unexpected EOF in archive". There where weeks, when all seven archives had and error! Disk, NFS, USB-Stick didn't mater. Also I wanted encryption. Which means another pipe. I have also seen bit flips on USB-Sticks. Where a copied jpg had reversed colours in the middle. So I wanted redundancy too. RAR has everything included, and I felt it had a low bus factor.
Time moves on. 7zip feature creeps towards rar. Most if not all consumer OSs can open and create .zip out of the box. So, who cares ;-) Even I use Borg for my backups these days, since I don't have to care about a bus factor any more. RAR is still cool and my 17 year old licence is still valid.
- kiririn 5y agoIt’s gzip that caused your issue, not tar. The lack of index in tar is actually a strength for surviving corruption, as there are no critical areas, ie you can lose any parts of a tar archive and recover useful data from the rest Tar.gz and tar.xz should never have been made a thing or become so popular, the only safe options are tar, tar.lz and to an extent tar.bz2