On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Star is the only portable and non fs-dependent archiver that supports
> incremental dumps, so I see no cometition
Incremental backups aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about
the ability to retrieve one or more distinct files from an arc
Uwe Dippel wrote:
> [i]google found that solaris does have file change notification:
> http://blogs.sun.com/praks/entry/file_events_notification
> [/i]
>
> Didn't see that one, thanks.
>
> [i]Would that do the job?[/i]
>
> It is not supposed to do a job, thanks :), it is for a presentation at a
[i]google found that solaris does have file change notification:
http://blogs.sun.com/praks/entry/file_events_notification
[/i]
Didn't see that one, thanks.
[i]Would that do the job?[/i]
It is not supposed to do a job, thanks :), it is for a presentation at a
conference I will be giving. I was
I'm not answering from experience, but a quick google found that solaris does
not have file change notification:
http://blogs.sun.com/praks/entry/file_events_notification
So I'd have thought you could use that to take a ZFS snapshot. ZFS snapshots
aren't of any one particular file, they are o
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cool. Can one selectively restore files from an archive created by
> Star? For example, if I archive everything under /home/rich, can I
> just restore /home/rich/some/random/file? What about with Star's
> competitors, tar, gtar, pax, and cpio? (I guess I
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > Star typically needs 1/4 .. 1/3 of the CPU time needed by GNU tar ans it
> > uses two processes to do the work in parallel. If you found a case where
> > star is not faster than GNU tar andwhere the sp
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> I re-ran my little test today and do see that 'star' does produce
> somewhat reduced overall run time but does not consume less CPU than
> GNU tar. This is just a test of the time to archive the files in my
> home directory. My home directory is i
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> Star typically needs 1/4 .. 1/3 of the CPU time needed by GNU tar ans it
> uses two processes to do the work in parallel. If you found a case where
> star is not faster than GNU tar andwhere the speed is not limited by the
> filesystem or the I/O devi
On Feb 23, 2008, at 10:57, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> Come on! Nobody?!
> I read through documents for several hours, and obviously done my
> work.
> Can someone please point me to link, or just unambiguously say
> 'yes' or 'no' to my question, if ZFS could produce a snapshot of
> whatever type, i
Come on! Nobody?!
I read through documents for several hours, and obviously done my work.
Can someone please point me to link, or just unambiguously say 'yes' or 'no' to
my question, if ZFS could produce a snapshot of whatever type, initiated with a
signal that in turn is derived from a change (e
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > where it decided to remove the GNU tar I had installed there. Star
> > does not support traditional tar command line syntax so it can't be
> > used with existing scripts. Performance testing showed that
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On advice of Joerg Schilling and not knowing what 'star' was, I
> decided to install it for testing. Star uses a very unorthodox build
> and install approach so the person building it has very little control
> over what it does.
This is of course w
12 matches
Mail list logo
