|
From: | Mick Russell |
Subject: | Tar differences between RH 6.2 & 7.0 |
Date: | Sat, 15 Dec 2001 13:31:04 +0200 |
Hi
I am a software developer who got sick & tired
of SCO and all the costs involved. My clients have been running RH 6.2 with a
full multi-user Vision database and my Retail program suite which is Acucobol
based for +/- 2 yrs with NO PROBLEMS on Intel platforms.
When I upgraded my in-house comms to ISDN a RH 7.0
upgrade was the simplest method to support ISDN but has led to problems with tar
in respect of 1/4 in SCSI tape drives (525Mb, 1Gb & 2Gb - Tandbergs &
Vipers).
Under RH 6.2 I execute:
tar -cvf /dev/st0 -z (followed by whatever needed
backing up)
Speed, compression & reliabilty of the backup
is superb as is portability between different systems - always a problem under
SCO.
Using the same tar command under RH 7.0 results in
the following problems:
1) Backing up the program directory which comprises
many small files results in data / file loss - whilst tar reports that all files
have been written use of tar -tvf /dev/st0 -z (or -xvf) shows that the last few
files have been ignored or truncated.
2) When backing up Vision data files (suffix .vis
for data .vix for index) the last file (thankfully a .vix) is truncated
which requires a rebuild of the file in question.
3) When using the -t or -x options the tape does
not rewind and requires a Ctrl C to perform this operation.
I assume these problems are related to Blocking
Factor & Record Size options but do not understand why they have been
introduced. I have also discovered that these problems can be overcome by not
using compression but the backup then takes as long as the old SCO version - not
good plus multiple tapes would be required on some client sites.
All comments & suggestions eagerly
awaited.
Regards ...... Mick Russell
|
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |