Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wyse!bob
From: bob@wyse.wyse.com (Bob McGowen x4312 dept208)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: tar or cpio, which is better?
Message-ID: <3030@wyse.wyse.com>
Date: 13 Nov 90 00:35:48 GMT
References: <57@astph.UUCP> <529@comcon.UUCP> <1990Nov12.095657.22489@erbe.se>
Sender: news@wyse.wyse.com
Reply-To: bob@wyse.UUCP (Bob McGowen x4312 dept208)
Organization: Wyse Technology
Lines: 19

In article <1990Nov12.095657.22489@erbe.se> prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson) writes:
>In a recent article tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) writes, on tar vs. cpio:
>
>>Tar seems more portable.  I did some archives on a system running
...11 deleted lines...
>detect end-of-tape and create multi-volume archives. It has better
>support for incremental backups and selective restores. And it supports
>longer paths than tar's limit of 100 characters.
>

cpio will also backup device files where tar will not.  This means
named pipes such as SysV UNIX's use for lpsched and cron interprocess
communication.  I do not know if this is a problem for the operation
of these two programs, however.

Bob McGowan  (standard disclaimer, these are my own ...)
Product Support, Wyse Technology, San Jose, CA
..!uunet!wyse!bob
bob@wyse.com