GNU Info
(tar.info)Blocking Factor
The Blocking Factor of an Archive
---------------------------------
_(This message will disappear, once this node revised.)_
The data in an archive is grouped into blocks, which are 512 bytes.
Blocks are read and written in whole number multiples called "records".
The number of blocks in a record (ie. the size of a record in units of
512 bytes) is called the "blocking factor". The
`--blocking-factor=512-SIZE' (`-b 512-SIZE') option specifies the
blocking factor of an archive. The default blocking factor is
typically 20 (ie. 10240 bytes), but can be specified at installation.
To find out the blocking factor of an existing archive, use `tar --list
--file=ARCHIVE-NAME'. This may not work on some devices.
Records are separated by gaps, which waste space on the archive
media. If you are archiving on magnetic tape, using a larger blocking
factor (and therefore larger records) provides faster throughput and
allows you to fit more data on a tape (because there are fewer gaps).
If you are archiving on cartridge, a very large blocking factor (say
126 or more) greatly increases performance. A smaller blocking factor,
on the other hand, may be useful when archiving small files, to avoid
archiving lots of nulls as `tar' fills out the archive to the end of
the record. In general, the ideal record size depends on the size of
the inter-record gaps on the tape you are using, and the average size
of the files you are archiving. Note: create, for information on
writing archives.
Archives with blocking factors larger than 20 cannot be read by very
old versions of `tar', or by some newer versions of `tar' running on
old machines with small address spaces. With GNU `tar', the blocking
factor of an archive is limited only by the maximum record size of the
device containing the archive, or by the amount of available virtual
memory.
Also, on some systems, not using adequate blocking factors, as
sometimes imposed by the device drivers, may yield unexpected
diagnostics. For example, this has been reported:
Cannot write to /dev/dlt: Invalid argument
In such cases, it sometimes happen that the `tar' bundled by the system
is aware of block size idiosyncrasies, while GNU `tar' requires an
explicit specification for the block size, which it cannot guess. This
yields some people to consider GNU `tar' is misbehaving, because by
comparison, `the bundle `tar' works OK'. Adding `-b 256', for example,
might resolve the problem.
If you use a non-default blocking factor when you create an archive,
you must specify the same blocking factor when you modify that archive.
Some archive devices will also require you to specify the blocking
factor when reading that archive, however this is not typically the
case. Usually, you can use `--list' (`-t') without specifying a
blocking factor--`tar' reports a non-default record size and then lists
the archive members as it would normally. To extract files from an
archive with a non-standard blocking factor (particularly if you're not
sure what the blocking factor is), you can usually use the
`--read-full-records' (`-B') option while specifying a blocking factor
larger then the blocking factor of the archive (ie. `tar --extract
--read-full-records --blocking-factor=300'. Note: list, for more
information on the `--list' (`-t') operation. Note: Reading, for a
more detailed explanation of that option.
`--blocking-factor=NUMBER'
`-b NUMBER'
Specifies the blocking factor of an archive. Can be used with any
operation, but is usually not necessary with `--list' (`-t').
Device blocking
`-b BLOCKS'
`--blocking-factor=BLOCKS'
Set record size to BLOCKS * 512 bytes.
This option is used to specify a "blocking factor" for the archive.
When reading or writing the archive, `tar', will do reads and
writes of the archive in records of BLOCK*512 bytes. This is true
even when the archive is compressed. Some devices requires that
all write operations be a multiple of a certain size, and so, `tar'
pads the archive out to the next record boundary.
The default blocking factor is set when `tar' is compiled, and is
typically 20. Blocking factors larger than 20 cannot be read by
very old versions of `tar', or by some newer versions of `tar'
running on old machines with small address spaces.
With a magnetic tape, larger records give faster throughput and fit
more data on a tape (because there are fewer inter-record gaps).
If the archive is in a disk file or a pipe, you may want to specify
a smaller blocking factor, since a large one will result in a large
number of null bytes at the end of the archive.
When writing cartridge or other streaming tapes, a much larger
blocking factor (say 126 or more) will greatly increase
performance. However, you must specify the same blocking factor
when reading or updating the archive.
Apparently, Exabyte drives have a physical block size of 8K bytes.
If we choose our blocksize as a multiple of 8k bytes, then the
problem seems to dissapper. Id est, we are using block size of
112 right now, and we haven't had the problem since we switched...
With GNU `tar' the blocking factor is limited only by the maximum
record size of the device containing the archive, or by the amount
of available virtual memory.
However, deblocking or reblocking is virtually avoided in a special
case which often occurs in practice, but which requires all the
following conditions to be simultaneously true:
* the archive is subject to a compression option,
* the archive is not handled through standard input or output,
nor redirected nor piped,
* the archive is directly handled to a local disk, instead of
any special device,
* `--blocking-factor=512-SIZE' (`-b 512-SIZE') is not
explicitly specified on the `tar' invocation.
In previous versions of GNU `tar', the `--compress-block' option
(or even older: `--block-compress') was necessary to reblock
compressed archives. It is now a dummy option just asking not to
be used, and otherwise ignored. If the output goes directly to a
local disk, and not through stdout, then the last write is not
extended to a full record size. Otherwise, reblocking occurs.
Here are a few other remarks on this topic:
* `gzip' will complain about trailing garbage if asked to
uncompress a compressed archive on tape, there is an option
to turn the message off, but it breaks the regularity of
simply having to use `PROG -d' for decompression. It would
be nice if gzip was silently ignoring any number of trailing
zeros. I'll ask Jean-loup Gailly, by sending a copy of this
message to him.
* `compress' does not show this problem, but as Jean-loup
pointed out to Michael, `compress -d' silently adds garbage
after the result of decompression, which tar ignores because
it already recognized its end-of-file indicator. So this bug
may be safely ignored.
* `gzip -d -q' will be silent about the trailing zeros indeed,
but will still return an exit status of 2 which tar reports
in turn. `tar' might ignore the exit status returned, but I
hate doing that, as it weakens the protection `tar' offers
users against other possible problems at decompression time.
If `gzip' was silently skipping trailing zeros _and_ also
avoiding setting the exit status in this innocuous case, that
would solve this situation.
* `tar' should become more solid at not stopping to read a pipe
at the first null block encountered. This inelegantly breaks
the pipe. `tar' should rather drain the pipe out before
exiting itself.
`-i'
`--ignore-zeros'
Ignore blocks of zeros in archive (means EOF).
The `--ignore-zeros' (`-i') option causes `tar' to ignore blocks
of zeros in the archive. Normally a block of zeros indicates the
end of the archive, but when reading a damaged archive, or one
which was created by concatenating several archives together, this
option allows `tar' to read the entire archive. This option is
not on by default because many versions of `tar' write garbage
after the zeroed blocks.
Note that this option causes `tar' to read to the end of the
archive file, which may sometimes avoid problems when multiple
files are stored on a single physical tape.
`-B'
`--read-full-records'
Reblock as we read (for reading 4.2BSD pipes).
If `--read-full-records' (`-B') is used, `tar' will not panic if an
attempt to read a record from the archive does not return a full
record. Instead, `tar' will keep reading until it has obtained a
full record.
This option is turned on by default when `tar' is reading an
archive from standard input, or from a remote machine. This is
because on BSD Unix systems, a read of a pipe will return however
much happens to be in the pipe, even if it is less than `tar'
requested. If this option was not used, `tar' would fail as soon
as it read an incomplete record from the pipe.
This option is also useful with the commands for updating an
archive.
Tape blocking
When handling various tapes or cartridges, you have to take care of
selecting a proper blocking, that is, the number of disk blocks you put
together as a single tape block on the tape, without intervening tape
gaps. A "tape gap" is a small landing area on the tape with no
information on it, used for decelerating the tape to a full stop, and
for later regaining the reading or writing speed. When the tape driver
starts reading a record, the record has to be read whole without
stopping, as a tape gap is needed to stop the tape motion without
loosing information.
Using higher blocking (putting more disk blocks per tape block) will
use the tape more efficiently as there will be less tape gaps. But
reading such tapes may be more difficult for the system, as more memory
will be required to receive at once the whole record. Further, if
there is a reading error on a huge record, this is less likely that the
system will succeed in recovering the information. So, blocking should
not be too low, nor it should be too high. `tar' uses by default a
blocking of 20 for historical reasons, and it does not really matter
when reading or writing to disk. Current tape technology would easily
accommodate higher blockings. Sun recommends a blocking of 126 for
Exabytes and 96 for DATs. We were told that for some DLT drives, the
blocking should be a multiple of 4Kb, preferably 64Kb (`-b 128') or 256
for decent performance. Other manufacturers may use different
recommendations for the same tapes. This might also depends of the
buffering techniques used inside modern tape controllers. Some imposes
a minimum blocking, or a maximum blocking. Others request blocking to
be some exponent of two.
So, there is no fixed rule for blocking. But blocking at read time
should ideally be the same as blocking used at write time. At one place
I know, with a wide variety of equipment, they found it best to use a
blocking of 32 to guarantee that their tapes are fully interchangeable.
I was also told that, for recycled tapes, prior erasure (by the same
drive unit that will be used to create the archives) sometimes lowers
the error rates observed at rewriting time.
I might also use `--number-blocks' instead of `--block-number', so
`--block' will then expand to `--blocking-factor' unambiguously.
automatically generated by info2www version 1.2.2.9