Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:06:47 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <dmiller@sparks.net> To: "Brandon D. Valentine" <bandix@geekpunk.net> Cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, "Mark W. Krentel" <krentel@dreamscape.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dump on mounted fs Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207191304320.87553-100000@search.sparks.net> In-Reply-To: <20020719091153.F18913-100000@dallben>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Brandon D. Valentine wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, David Malone wrote: > > >Maybe I should resign to using tar on Linux. Can tar be made not > >to modify the ctime, mtime and atime? > > This is what the general consensus on the amanda-users list has been for > some time now. Linux ext2 dump/restore is massively broken. If you're > using something like XFS though you can probably get away with > xfs_dump/restore. Personally I prefer to use tar anyway. A tar archive > is restorable on most any unix without requiring a vendor/filesystem > specific restore binary be available. That's one less point of failure > in restoring the backups. The only place where tar really won't cut it > is when you're using special filesystem features not traditionally > supported by unix, such as filesystem ACLs. A year ago there was a problem with backing up files larger than either 2GB or 4GB, I forget which. A beta version of star would handle it, but all the native versions of tar and gtar failed. That's often not a problem, but if you're backing up db container files on big drives it's an issue. --- David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0207191304320.87553-100000>