On Thursday 03 July 2003 18:03, bao wrote: >Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: >>On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 at 4:20pm, Michael D. Schleif wrote >> >>>Am I right that amrecover is useless *without* an index? >> >>Yep. > >No argument about it. >But, I don't keep index files along with the backup image on tape. >Before running amrecover, >I would run a script to extract and recreate the index files and use >them to run amrecover. >Are there any drawbacks to that scheme ???
Yes. If the indices do make it into the backup tape (I've had it miss-fire here and have taken other means to assure I have an up2date backup of them on the same tape here), they will still be a day old compared to the tapes actual contents. >>>Also, using only amrestore, is it possible to get at individual >>>files/directories, or is it only a matter of restoring the entire >>>dump/tarball? >> >>Yes, depending. If you use dump, you can usually pipe amrestore to >>'restore -i', the interactive restore, which will let you pick and >> choose. If you use tar, you can do a 'tar t' to get a table of >> contents, and then 'tar x myfile ./mydir/myfile2' to get >> particular files. -- Cheers, Gene AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED] 320M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512M 99.26% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
