Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:25:34 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> To: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, 'cpghost' <cpghost@cordula.ws>, 'Gavin Atkinson' <gavin@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: dump problems Message-ID: <46E56FFE.7000208@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <E1IUePt-000P2R-RM@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> References: <E1ISdQi-000GkC-4v@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> <20070904233246.GA2409@epia-2.farid-hajji.net> <E1ISnig-000Nbm-Ep@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> <043a01c7f202$a7ad0920$f7071b60$@co.uk> <E1IU10R-000MRT-T8@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> <046801c7f229$a4534510$ecf9cf30$@co.uk> <E1IUcXc-000NdZ-LH@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> <E1IUePt-000P2R-RM@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Danny Braniss wrote: > [dump] has been around since the beginin of time, > or at least since Unix V6 :-), and it has been hacked ever since. but now that > most of you never heard of 9track tapes, etc, I was wondering if there is a > point in hacking at > it again. > pros: dump/restore has never failed me till now. > cons: there are other programs tar/cpio/gtar/etc, but they each have their > nits. I think there is real value in a backup/restore option that is specifically designed for UFS volumes. In particular, it's the only way to be comfortably certain that all UFS-specific attributes (ACLs, extended attributes, etc) are correctly backed-up and restored. Tar, cpio, and other similar programs are widely used for purposes other than whole-system backup. As such, they have to balance requirements that simply aren't of interest to dump/restore. Tim Kientzle
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46E56FFE.7000208>