On Thursday 10 September 2009 09:37:04 Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 07:21 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Thursday September 10 2009, Chuck Payne wrote:
I have about twenty boxes I need to back up. I been told that cpio is go to do that, I currently use tar but by directory by directory
I don't think there's any reason to prefer cpio over tar. I recommend you stick with your tar-based scheme, if its suits you. Depending on your needs, an rsync approach might be a better choice.
Ditto on the use of cpio. But I'd recommend star over tar. Use star's exustar format and you include ACLs and metadata in your backup which [sadly] tar still cannot do.
I suggest pax over any other archiver. It speaks at least 2 formats (cpio and tar; both specified by SUSv2) and most implementations support additional formats (e.g. pax; specified by SUSv3). It is the preferred replacement for tar or cpio in the Single UNIX Specification. Both tar and cpio have been marked "LEGACY" since at least 1998. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/