I am used to raring files -- but I am looking for something faster. I see that there is a "split" command. How does this command compare to
rar? What is are the differences between
split is a traditional UNIX tool, that does one job only—splitting files. If you had a bunch of files to archive to individual disks, you might do it like this:
____________________ | FILESYSTEM | _________ ____________ | dir1/ dir2/ | tar | | gzip | | | file1 file3 | -------------->| ARCHIVE |------------>| COMPRESSED | | file2 file4 | |_________| | ARCHIVE | |____________________| | | |____________| | | s | p | l | i | t | +----------------+----------------+------------------+ | | | \|/ \|/ \|/ ____________ ____________ ____________ | | | | | | | COMPRESSED | | COMPRESSED | | COMPRESSED | | ARCHIVE | | ARCHIVE | | ARCHIVE | . . . | DISK 1 | | DISK 2 | | DISK 3 | |____________| |____________| |____________|
tar to combine a bunch of files into one archive; you use
gzip to make that archive smaller by compressing it; and you finally use
split to cut that compressed archive into chunks that fit on your disks. The advantage here is that you can easily switch out parts—say, you could use
xz to compress your archive. Or
cpio to make your archive.
rar (and also
zip) come from the DOS/Windows world, where you don't normally chain together tools. So, they actually combine an archiver (like tar), a compressor (like gzip), and a file splitter (like split) into one tool. The advantage is that they can three parts have more knowledge of the other—say, you could avoid splitting a single file across disks (which is near impossible with the distinct programs).
split splits files, the size remains the same. rar reduces the size.