Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!harvard!cmcl2!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: 4.2BSD restore(8)
Message-ID: <2345@phri.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-May-86 09:39:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: phri.2345
Posted: Sun May 11 09:39:05 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 13-May-86 02:03:29 EDT
References: <2066@hao.UUCP> <27300011@convex> <14854@onfcanim.UUCP>
Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 17
Summary: doing a dump isn't so bad compared to doing the restore


	I don't see what all the fuss is about.  In the little over 2 years
that we've been running 4.2, I've had to do exactly one level 0 restore
(when DEC swapped the HDA on our disk).  At least on our system (4 Meg 750,
TU-80, RA-81) the restore took about 2-3 times as long as the required
post-restore dump.  In the long run, the extra couple of hours just didn't
make any difference.

	My pet peeve about restore is that when you do "restore -i" to get
into interactive mode, the default is to put "." on the extraction list.
When I want to extract a single file from a backup (the usual case), the
first thing I have to do is "delete ." which takes forever on large file
systems.
-- 
Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016