On Friday 10 February 2006 13:40, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: >On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 at 1:22pm, Gene Heskett wrote > >> On Friday 10 February 2006 11:42, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: >>> tar: >>> CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 >> >> CentOS tar-1.14.* is known bad, I'm using 1.15-1 myself, with >> 1.13-25 installed as a fallback available with a rebuild/reinstall >> of amanda, a 6 minute job typically... > >Actually, centos-4's tar seems to work just fine. They recently fixed > a sparse files bug in it, and it seems quite happy. I've recently > done a few multi-TB backup/restores with it with no problem. > >Or is there something I'm missing?
Theres a difference in the contents of the header of its output files. OTIH, maybe it can recover with then in place, but other tars cannot. I haven't personally tried to confirm that. Compare their output list when asked for a table of contents of the backup. I think you'll see the difference as 1.14 will have a double sized string of numbers prepended to the filename it outputs. Or at least it did here, and several others also reported problems with it. The one thing I was surprised is that tar development is usually rather glacier like, but 1.14 only lasted a few weeks on the gnu.org ftp site. Something HAD to prompt that knee jerk reaction pace other than global warming. :-) >As to centos vs. FC, I prefer centos if only for the longer life cycle > and the feeling that it's a bit more tested than FC. That being > said, I've never run FC, so take that all with a grain of salt. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.