Can anyone here answer the implied question about recent BSD dump and restore at the end of Chris's post below?
Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ FASTNET: NORTHERLY 4 OR 5 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 THEN SOUTHEASTERLY 4 OR 5. SHOWERS. GOOD. ------- start of forwarded message ------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Thompson) Newsgroups: ucam.comp.unix Subject: A problem with restoring from Solaris ufsdumps Date: 18 Oct 2002 13:13:25 GMT Organization: University of Cambridge, England Message-ID: <aop1dl$rl6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> We came across the following problem with Solaris ufsdump & ufsrestore a little while ago, and it has been suggested that I post about it here in case anyone else might be affected. If an incremental dump includes no files or directories at all, then an incremental dump taken relative to it will not restore properly with "ufsrestore r". For example A = level 0 dump of /usr on Sunday B = level 1 dump of /usr on Monday (empty, as no files changed) C = level 2 dump of /usr on Tuesday (not empty, e.g. patches applied) Then A restores correctly, and B on top of it, but then an attempt to restore C on top of that fails with "Incremental volume too low" (code for "you are attempting to restore dumps in the wrong order"). The restore of B has failed to update the restoresymtable file correctly. You are likely to get bitten only for filing systems which are almost static. A possible circumvention is to use only one level of increment above 0 for such partitions. The bug has been reported to Sun, who confirm that they can reproduce it. No timescale for a fix as yet. The bug seems to have been in the Solaris programs for a long time. It is entirely possible that other offspring of the original BSD dump & restore programs have it as well. Chris Thompson Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- end of forwarded message ------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
