David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Oct 11, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Sean Zimmermann wrote: > > If I ignored the indexing issue (since most of my work with tar is > > large, > > non-incremental backups where I typically restore the entire > > contents - > > it would be nice if there was indexing, but is not a huge problem), > > should I still use something other than tar? > > The answer is a resounding "maybe." cpio has some advantages over > tar when doing compressed backups. It compresses each file > individually, instead of compressing the entire archive. This makes > a big difference for data recovery. If part of a compressed tar > archive gets corrupted, you'll probably lose the whole thing. If > part of a compressed cpio archive gets corrupted, you'll lose only > the individual files affected by the corruption. This was probably > more of a concern back in the days when we all backed up to tape, but > bad hard disk sectors and scratched DVD-Rs do happen. > > cpio has a really horrid command line syntax, though. ;)
Are you sure that you are not talking about afio? I looked at the documentation for cpio, and there is no mention of compression (for etch). -- Carl Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
