6 Feb
2007
6 Feb
'07
4:38 p.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
Yep, that was my thinking too. I really need to find the time to write a Linux
util to suck tar data off DLT and checksum file-by-file to test backups;
currently I restore the whole archive and then use find/cksum/diff to check
against source data, but it's annoying needing that extra disk capacity just
for the sake of backup testing.
cheers
Jules
Jules Richardson wrote:
:-)
I've never had one fail on me, but thankfully it'll always be easy to pick up
either an identical one or one that's compatible with the media used.
I've always used DLT for backups in recent
years; far as I'm aware
they have a reasonable level of error detection / correction
information built in at the lowest level, I don't see them dying out
for a long time, and I prefer the fact that the media's self-contained
(unlike CD / DVD which runs the risk of attracting dirt / fingerprints
due to handling).
It is rare that they fail completely (they usually slowly develop errors
over time in heavy use until you have to replace them). But let me tell
you, if you get the one rare one that does fail, it fails SPECTACULARLY.
As in, it takes the drive with it! [1] Yes, tar
has some verification options built in, but at least for
Its verification is practically a non-feature. Always generate parity
or make redundant copies.