Ask HN: Why not Tar?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5839753

by ChikkaChiChi • 13 years ago

1 5 13 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

Most web server configurations include gzip compression to send files to the client. Wouldn't giving servers the ability to tar package cachable static files so that all those files came down in one request improve the user experience further?

Any ideas why this hasn't ever been done?

forgivegod• 13 years ago

Might be because some sites merge static files together into one resource by using custom scripts to join files, shinkansen (.net), or packtag (jsp).

taylorbuley• 13 years ago

Tar is an archive tool.

Gzip is compression tool.

One difference between them: an archive tool would e.g. concatenate files just once but a compression tool would compress files individually.

zoowar• 13 years ago

You didn't understand the question.

dragonwriter• 13 years ago

Wouldn't giving servers the ability to tar package cachable static files so that all those files came down in one request improve the user experience further?

I suspect not all that much. You'd trade request overhead for untar overhead.

mooism2• 13 years ago

Tar archives include filesystem metadata (e.g. permissions), which don't make sense if you're viewing it as a collection of cacheable resources, and omit http metadata (e.g. content types, e-tags) which it would be at least helpful to include.

Ask HN: Why not Tar?

Related Stories