On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:03:44AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:31:46AM -0400, Guy Dallaire wrote: > > I plan to use gnu tar instead of dump to take my amanda backups. Is it > > as stable/safe as dump/ufsdump ? I need to be able to exclude files, > > that's why I use gnu tar. > > There are those who believe that tar is safer than dump, at least when > running under Linux/ext2fs. Linus Torvalds is one of them, although > there are plenty of others who say that there's no significant difference > either way.
I could be very wrong, I'm just asking... I'd understood that the OS native dump could handle correctly certain types of files that tar couldn't. Not an issue of binaries but rather other types of special files. Is this or was this true ? Even if it is, I have never had issues with tar vs dump for non-boot partitions. I have a preference for dump for user partitions but its an end-user preference rather than a performance or safety one, we often use the dump -i interactive switch to help us select the files to extract and being able to walk the tree is not a feature of tar, though if you are building an index for amrecover to use it may be a non-issue (we haven't done this at our site). --- Brian R Cuttler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Systems Support (v) 518 486-1697 Wadsworth Center (f) 518 473-6384 NYS Department of Health Help Desk 518 473-0773
