28 Jul
2004
28 Jul
'04
10:28 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 21:45, Brad Parker wrote:
jjd wrote:
Indeed. Doesn't tar have issues over 2GB archive sizes though, where
each vendor introduced their own proprietary extensions to allow it to
cope? I'm sure I recall something about that a few years ago, but I'm
not sure what the 'real' problems are.
I'm not sure what the pathname length limit is for tar either (and
whether it's platform-specific). Only reason I mention that is because I
archived my mail folders (Evolution, Redhat 9) a few weeks ago using tar
in verbose mode, and it was truncating some of the file/pathnames *on
screen*. I don't know if it was doing the same for the actual files or
not as I ended up creating the archive from a directory closer to the
actual data I was archiving, so the paths weren't quite as long. Seeing
stuff truncated was a little disconcerting though if it was actually
doing the same to archive files - I'm sure lots of people use tar
without the verbose switch...
Anyone got any pointers to a good site stating the different limitations
of tar for different vendors / releases? For peace of mind I'd like to
know that my enormous archive created on system bar will work on system
foo in ten years time... :-)
cheers
Jules
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 16:14, Doc Shipley wrote:
it's funny, tar seems to be the one thing that still works, despite many other
pieces of backup software (and even compression programs)... Paul Koning wrote:
and the backup software junked.
I laugh at those who criticized me for backing up my system with tar :)