That is only a variation of (b) above - if you can't trust your backup procedure, a missing backup not your primary problem. Well, what I mean is that a compressed tar is not reliable as a backup procedure. I don't know what is reliable in Linux, but tar isn't. It is much less reliable than, for example, the old pctools backup from central point software was twenty years ago. Okay, that's an interesting point - I don't think I have heard anyone complain about tars reliability before. What do you see as a more reliable tool/utility then?
I disagree with the claim that tar is "unreliable". I've been a UNIX admin for 16 years and I can easily count the number of failed tar archives I've encountered. I think the issue is that tar is not "trusted" - a 0 exit status doesn't mean your archive is any good. Tar also won't tell you if an archive has been modified since it was created [another kind of "untrusted"]. I'm not aware of any "trusted" (verified + secured) Open Source backup solutions - but I take that as a vote for the "reliability" of tar. Clearly it is sufficiently "reliable" for the massive number of people using it. I anyone knows of one [that isn't a wrapper around tar! :)] I'd be very interested. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org