

Ask HN: Why not Tar? - ChikkaChiChi

Most web server configurations include gzip compression to send files to the client. Wouldn&#x27;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?<p>Any ideas why this hasn&#x27;t ever been done?
======
mooism2
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.

------
dragonwriter
> 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.

------
taylorbuley
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
You didn't understand the question.

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

