On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 05:00:01PM -0400, John Almberg wrote:
> >Little did I know, when I posted this question, that I would
> >receive such a wealth of information. I'm deeply appreciative of
> >the community's willingness to share information and thank each and
> >every one of your for your contributions.
> >Now I have some reading to do. :-)
> I think there is a difference between what dump does and what tar/
> rsync do... I like the idea of doing a bit level backup, rather than
> a file level backup.
> If you've never done a dump, try it locally, and then try restore,
> particularly interactive restore (restore -i). It's pretty cool and I
> don't think tar or rsync have anything like it.
Although some of the aspects of using dump/restore are a little clunky,
it is still superior to any other method of backing up whole file systems.
One of its weaknesses is that it will only back up a file system and
not a subset of one such as one directory tree. You can, though, restore
individual files and directory trees easily.
What dump gets you is a system that knows how to handle every type
of file condition correctly. None of the other quite do that.
Its other weakness is that it is filesystem/OS specific. Geneally,
you cannot take a dump on one OS and restore it under a different on -
like you cannot dump SunOS and restore on FreeBSD or whatever.
It will work over networks, though that can be slow and it doesn't
recover well from network errors/failures.
> -- John
> firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"