What's the point of using tar *for backup* today?
in [Shell]
|
From: Sidney Lambe on 1 Jan 2010 21:33 On comp.unix.shell, Eze <garzon.lucero(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> If you'd just _try_ both methods, you'd soon learn the >> answer to your question. > > I did try, successfully. In fact, lumping many files into one can > easily take you to >4GB, which makes it hard to use the rather common > FAT32 filesystem for external drives, while this is not an issue as > long as your individual files don't go over that limit. I know unix > experts would not use FAT32 at all, but so far I can only see > disadvantages. However, the popularity of tar tells me I'm missing > something. > >> Why do you imagine that the whole rest of the unix/linux >> world doesn't know what they are doing? > > If I imagined that I wouldn't be asking, but thanks anyway. I repeat: Why didn't you _try_ the two approaches? Without doing that you are going to have a great deal of difficulty understanding any answers you receeve here. And your questions will be annoyingly ignorant. You can't learn how to use the shell by just talking about it. Are you the same person who just posted a script and asked everyone if it looked like it would work without even trying it? Sie
From: Seebs on 1 Jan 2010 21:46 On 2010-01-02, Eze <garzon.lucero(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I see the point of using tar in order to, say, send a whole directory > as a single attachment file. I realize historically this "tape > archive" utility may have been needed for some technical reasons. But > I don't see the advantages of using tar to back up some files and copy > them to some external storage device. Couldn't you just cp? The files > would already been untarred... tar can preserve file ownership, permissions, timestamps, and so on. Also, a tar file can be copied to anything -- say, a FAT32 drive with no underlying representation for such traits. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Eze on 1 Jan 2010 22:30 > I repeat: Why didn't you _try_ the two approaches? If you just _read_ my original reply you'd find the answer. > Without doing that you are going to have a great deal of difficulty > understanding any answers you receeve here. And your questions > will be annoyingly ignorant. People don't find ignorance annoying, even in its extreme form. (There are exceptions, and something tells me you may fit the bill.) It is the perplexing combination of arrogance and ignorance that annoys greatly. You provide a sound example, with careless oracle-like statements about people you don't know which are completely off the mark. See, I did try the cp and tar methods (hint: "4GB"), and I don't just talk about the shell. And as far as I know you don't know anything about the shell either. Interestingly, you wrote as much as Karsten while providing infinitely less insight. Quite a feat! > Are you the same person who just posted a script and asked everyone > if it looked like it would work without even trying it? No. Your replies are and encourage off-the-topic posts. I'll leave you the final word as I want to go back to the shell. Have fun.
From: Eze on 1 Jan 2010 22:30 > I repeat: Why didn't you _try_ the two approaches? If you just _read_ my original reply you'd find the answer. > Without doing that you are going to have a great deal of difficulty > understanding any answers you receeve here. And your questions > will be annoyingly ignorant. People don't find ignorance annoying, even in its extreme form. (There are exceptions, and something tells me you may fit the bill.) It is the perplexing combination of arrogance and ignorance that annoys greatly. You provide a sound example, with careless oracle-like statements about people you don't know which are completely off the mark. See, I did try the cp and tar methods (hint: "4GB"), and I don't just talk about the shell. And as far as I know you don't know anything about the shell either. Interestingly, you wrote as much as Karsten while providing infinitely less insight. Quite a feat! > Are you the same person who just posted a script and asked everyone > if it looked like it would work without even trying it? No. Your replies are and encourage off-the-topic posts. I'll leave you the final word as I want to go back to the shell. Have fun.
From: Eze on 1 Jan 2010 22:35
> tar can preserve file ownership, permissions, timestamps, and so on. > Also, a tar file can be copied to anything -- say, a FAT32 drive with > no underlying representation for such traits. Thank you, Seebs. It's great to see most people actually answering my question instead of belittling me! |