-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 El 2009-09-15 a las 02:02 -0400, Osamalamadingdong escribió:

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

On Monday, 2009-09-14 at 08:28 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:

...

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.

Only if your storage media is flaky, in which case, it doesn't matter what backup program you're using.

That being said, I prefer uncompressed tar files for long-term backup precisely because a 1-bit error in the tar file is, if conditions are right, much easier to correct (if say, it was part of the archive storing a text file) than a 1-bit error in a compressed file (regardless of compression method).

...

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. I still have backups in 360 KB floppies that work... it had compression and low level error recovery codes. Not portable, of course.

In 20+ years of using tar, I've never experienced a problem with it.

I think your problem is not in the software, but in storage media that went bad.

Media does go bad now and then, it is unavoidable. But those backups in flopies I mention above have errors (perhaps 2 in 80 disks), and the program is nevertheless capable of making a full, clean recovery of every archived file. That's what I want to have in linux, and I haven't. - -- Saludos Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkqvqXUACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WTcQCgg0LmUBSA90Pj7H0qLcpKSAqc 9EYAn17QeTs7/GEwtcnXqKvKEP2FJYr+ =QYnc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----