EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Siegerman
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: moved to new disk, now amanda wants to do level
> 0's on whole system
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:20:23AM -0500, Jay Fenlason wrote:
>
EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Siegerman
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: moved to new disk, now amanda wants to do level
> 0's on whole system
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:20:23AM -0500, Jay Fenlason wrote:
>
> either. To copy directory trees, I usually use "( cd /fromdir ; tar
> cf - . ) | ( cd /todir ; tar xpf -)", which preserves modification
> times, and permissions.
I definitely am a fan of tar copying, but wouldn't recommend the above (as
written). The brief explanation is that you really want t
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Eric Siegerman wrote:
> But all of those -- tar, cpio, rsync -- are kludges. Is it just
> me, or do other people also find it ludicrous that 30+ years on,
> UNIX still doesn't have a proper copy command?
Huh? You just showed there are enough flavors to suit just about
any
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:20:23AM -0500, Jay Fenlason wrote:
> Also, cp/fr may not have correctly reset the modification times of the
> files when it copied them. Oh, and they may not handle links well
> either. To copy directory trees, I usually use "( cd /fromdir ; tar
> cf - . ) | ( cd /todir
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 05:26:26PM +0100, Christopher Odenbach wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > The times reported by an ls -l seem to be sane, and of those perms I
> > checked, they were preserved ok. The major hiccup I had was that cp
> > doesn't do ".name" files
>
> Of course "cp" does copy dot-files. I
Hi,
> The times reported by an ls -l seem to be sane, and of those perms I
> checked, they were preserved ok. The major hiccup I had was that cp
> doesn't do ".name" files
Of course "cp" does copy dot-files. I think you may have stumbled over
the shell asterisk.
If you say "cp -rp * /somewher
On Friday 14 November 2003 09:20, Jay Fenlason wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:23:12AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Greetings all;
>>
>> See subject, Which of course is leading to a 90% failure rate as
>> the whole system has around 40Gb, but the tapes are only 4Gb's.
>>
>> What happened is tha
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:23:12AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
>
> See subject, Which of course is leading to a 90% failure rate as the
> whole system has around 40Gb, but the tapes are only 4Gb's.
>
> What happened is that I put in a new 120 Gb drive, 2x the size of the
> one I
On Friday 14 November 2003 04:37, Sven Rudolph wrote:
>Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What happened is that I put in a new 120 Gb drive, 2x the size of
>> the one I took out, mainly because the root partition was full,
>> and no room to readjust things was available.
>>
>> So the diskl
Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What happened is that I put in a new 120 Gb drive, 2x the size of the
> one I took out, mainly because the root partition was full, and no
> room to readjust things was available.
> So the disklist is unchanged. Why does amanda want to do a level 0 on
Greetings all;
See subject, Which of course is leading to a 90% failure rate as the
whole system has around 40Gb, but the tapes are only 4Gb's.
What happened is that I put in a new 120 Gb drive, 2x the size of the
one I took out, mainly because the root partition was full, and no
room to readj
12 matches
Mail list logo
