Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpcc05!hpgva1!hpuamsa!franks
From: franks@hpuamsa.neth.hp.com (Frank Slootweg CRC)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Do NOT use ftio or cpio for backups
Message-ID: <28510057@hpuamsa.neth.hp.com>
Date: 14 Jun 91 12:30:15 GMT
References: <WAYNE.91Jun7172758@dsndata.uucp>
Organization: HP-Sales Office-The Netherlands
Lines: 32

Mark Lanzo wrote :

> Is there some other option which I've overlooked?

and I wrote :

>   Since I do not have the algorithms and formats handy (is is "ages" ago
> that this was done) *and* I do not know if I can make this public, I
> leave this one to others to answer.

  I can no longer control myself. :-) Without giving away any (possible)
HP private information, I can probably safely say the following :

- The *absolute* value of the inode number on tape has no meaning for
  the target system. I.e. when restoring/overwriting a file, you do not
  create/open an *inode*, you create/open a *file* (which just happens
  to have an inode).
- The inode number on the source (cpio -o) system *can* be the same as on
  the target (cpio -i), but this will normally not be the case and it is
  surely not a requirement.
- The inode number on tape is only *needed* for files with more than one
  link.

  Now you go figure how we did it! :-)

  Hint: You wrote :

> How is this done?  I did "man 4 cpio". 

  Sure you did, but did you *read* it? :-)

Frank Slootweg, HP, Dutch CRC.