Re: Is gnu tar as safe as dump ?
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:07:18AM -0700, Scott Mcdermott wrote: > Brian Cuttler on Tue 10/05 11:18 -0400: > > 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 ? > > Well POSIX 1.e ACLs are one of them. > > Why GNU tar doesn't support ACLs when star has supported > them for ages, is quite a mystery (possibly, so they don't > break the tar format). dump/restore, in all its various flavors, is FS-type and/or OS-type specific. It thus can include features specific to those FS/OS. ACL features are not consistant in what and how they are implemented; they too are FS/OS specific. Thus, dump/restore can handle them. Tar, OTOH, is intended to be FS/OS non-specific. Thus it handles a subset of all possible FS/OS features, namely those common to all and present since the early days of unix. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: Is gnu tar as safe as dump ?
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:07:18AM -0700, Scott Mcdermott wrote: > Brian Cuttler on Tue 10/05 11:18 -0400: > > 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 ? > > Well POSIX 1.e ACLs are one of them. > > Why GNU tar doesn't support ACLs when star has supported > them for ages, is quite a mystery (possibly, so they don't > break the tar format). Well, this is the wrong list for it but... tar should include a protocal version number in its header so that you could interchange files with different versions and be upwardly compattible. But I shouldn't start that thread here - and for all I know (and I know nothing about tar internals) it already has a protocal number as part of its spec. --- Brian R Cuttler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Systems Support(v) 518 486-1697 Wadsworth Center(f) 518 473-6384 NYS Department of HealthHelp Desk 518 473-0773
Re: Is gnu tar as safe as dump ?
Brian Cuttler on Tue 10/05 11:18 -0400: > 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 ? Well POSIX 1.e ACLs are one of them. Why GNU tar doesn't support ACLs when star has supported them for ages, is quite a mystery (possibly, so they don't break the tar format).
Re: Is gnu tar as safe as dump ?
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 HealthHelp Desk 518 473-0773
Re: Is gnu tar as safe as dump ?
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.
Is gnu tar as safe as dump ?
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. Also, when I'm done testing amanda, I guess there is some way to "reinitialize" it's database of tapes and dumps/indexes ? Where should I look in the documentation ? Thanks
