Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-11 Thread Steve Williams
On 11/12/2017 12:27 PM, Philip Guenther wrote: On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Otto Moerbeek > wrote: On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 08:30:54AM -0700, Steve Williams wrote: > cpio has always been my "go to" for file system duplication because it will > re-creat

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-11 Thread Philip Guenther
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 08:30:54AM -0700, Steve Williams wrote: > > cpio has always been my "go to" for file system duplication because it > will > > re-create device nodes. > > Both pax and tar do that as well. > Come on, you still remembe

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-11 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 08:30:54AM -0700, Steve Williams wrote: > Hi, > > cpio has always been my "go to" for file system duplication because it will > re-create device nodes. Both pax and tar do that as well. -Otto > > Cheers, > Steve Williams > > > On 10/12/2017 11:03 AM, webmas..

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-11 Thread Steve Williams
Hi, cpio has always been my "go to" for file system duplication because it will re-create device nodes. Cheers, Steve Williams On 10/12/2017 11:03 AM, webmas...@bennettconstruction.us wrote: Forgive problems with this email. I saw how my emails showed up on marc.info Scary. This is just tem

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-11 Thread x9p
On Mon, December 11, 2017 4:28 am, Robert Paschedag wrote: >> > > Is "rsync" not an option? > +1 for rsync. never had a problem. cheers. -- x9p | PGP : 0x03B50AF5EA4C8D80 / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-11 Thread vincent delft
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Philip Guenther wrote: > 'pax' and 'tar' are actually the same binary so they have the same > limitation from the file formats that are supported, as well as any purely > internal limitations. "pax -rw" actually has file format limitations by > design, so it do

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-11 Thread Robert Paschedag
Am 10. Dezember 2017 22:17:11 MEZ schrieb vincent delft : >Hello, > >Did you tried pax ? >some thing like: pax -rw -pe > >I don't know if this the best tool, but I'm using it to duplicate a 1TB >drive (having lot of hard links) onto an other one. >I've done it couple of time, and I've do not see

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-10 Thread Philip Guenther
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 3:46 PM, wrote: > > > Wait, you previously said your problem was with symlinks *permissions* > but > > now you're saying *ownership*! I can confirm that restore(8) didn't > > preserve the permissions (thus the patch I sent), but as long as you ran > it > > with sufficient

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-10 Thread webmaster
> > Wait, you previously said your problem was with symlinks *permissions* but > now you're saying *ownership*! I can confirm that restore(8) didn't > preserve the permissions (thus the patch I sent), but as long as you ran it > with sufficient privilege it should have always restored symlink

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-10 Thread Philip Guenther
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 3:24 PM, wrote: ... > > > > > dump > > > > I had to move /usr/local to a bigger partition. growfs, > > > > etc. I kept the /usr/local untouched and then dumped it > > > > to the new partition, expecting a true duplication. > > > > Nope. > > > > It changed all of the program

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-10 Thread webmaster
> > 'pax' and 'tar' are actually the same binary so they have the same > limitation from the file formats that are supported, as well as any purely > internal limitations.  "pax -rw" actually has file format limitations by > design, so it doesn't automagically free you from those limitations.

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-10 Thread Philip Guenther
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, vincent delft wrote: > Did you tried pax ? > some thing like: pax -rw -pe > > I don't know if this the best tool, but I'm using it to duplicate a 1TB > drive (having lot of hard links) onto an other one. > I've done it couple of time, and I've do not see issues. 'pax' and 't

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-10 Thread vincent delft
Hello, Did you tried pax ? some thing like: pax -rw -pe I don't know if this the best tool, but I'm using it to duplicate a 1TB drive (having lot of hard links) onto an other one. I've done it couple of time, and I've do not see issues. rgds On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 7:03 PM, wrote:

Re: FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-10 Thread webmaster
I'm not able to try it right now, but would gtar accomplish what that our tar doesn't for this? As in maybe pull something out of it into our tar? Chris Bennett

FAQ's duplicating file systems, both methods fail to reproduce correctly

2017-12-10 Thread webmaster
Forgive problems with this email. I saw how my emails showed up on marc.info Scary. This is just temporary. OK. I've tried to use both methods and just don't get true duplication. tar It can't work with file and directory names that are OK in filesystem, but too long for itself. Quite a while bac