On Tuesday 19 October 2004 11:10, Paul Bijnens wrote: >Michael Schaller wrote: >> I found out that this was a problem of my tar. >> I backed up with GNUTAR and "compress server fast". >> AMRESTORE restored the file but TAR (on the server!) gave some >> horrible messages like yours. >> I transferred the file to the original machine ("client") and all >> worked fine. >> I guess this is a problem of different tar versions ... > >That's strange and freightening! Tar is supposed to be a portable >format! Especially gnutar -- there are indeed differences with > normal OS-supplied tar formats, but only to overcome limits in > filesize, path name length etc.; but the same version of gnutar on > different architectures should be able to read each others files. > >I'm not 100% sure what happens if you compile tar on an architecture >without largefile support on and try to restore a file exceeding > such a limit. > >Are you sure you used the correct version of tar. I've called mine >"gtar" to avoid confusion with the OS-supplied tar (actually, amanda >even uses "amgtar", which is a link to the correct version, or a >wrapper that does some pre/post processing if needed on e.g. > database DLE's).
We probably should point out to the new bees here, that tar-1.13 is indeed broken. In other words, if your "tar --version" doesn't report that its at least 1.13-19, it may not, and probably is not, compatible with anything but itself. (and I'm not sure that 1.13 could even recover its own output!) I hate to be boreing and repetitive, but there are those here *now* who did not go thru that period of hair removal that 1.13 caused. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.