On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 10:53 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. 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
On Thursday 10 September 2009 09:37:04 Adam Tauno Williams wrote: 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.
Does pax archive ACLs and extended attributes? The man page doesn't mention those issues at all; actually from the man page it doesn't look impressive at all - still stupid filename and path length limitations, no mention of UNICODE support, etc... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org