Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Question about cpio vs. tar
Message-ID: <746@steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-May-86 17:00:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: steinmet.746
Posted: Thu May 15 17:00:23 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 18-May-86 12:49:44 EDT
References: <236@oucs.UUCP> <468@ncr-sd.UUCP> <355@imagen.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen)
Organization: GE CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 30
Xref: linus net.unix:7205 net.unix-wizards:15058

In article <355@imagen.UUCP> SofPasuk@imagen.UUCP writes:
>> In article <236@oucs.UUCP> tim@oucs.UUCP (Tim Thompson) writes:
>> >I've been reading the discussion about the shortcomings of multiple tape
>> >backups in cpio format. Does tar handle multiple tapes better?
>> 
>> Last I looked, tar didn't handle multiple reels at all.
>> -- 
>
>... Depends upon the "flavor" of Eunuchs.  Some SysV porters "fixed" their
>versions of "cpio" to handle multiple volumes of media.  One good example
>is Convergent Technologies in CTIX ...

How true! Xenix/286 asks for the device name of the continuation device when
cpio runs out of room on the output device (I can understand that). The
AT&T 7300 tells me to press EXIT to stop or ENTER when the next disk is
mounted. This implies that it is getting the device name of sysout.

The Xenix method is fine if you wnat to switch between two devices to make
the process go faster (assuming that you can type the device name faster
than changing the media).
-- 
	-bill davidsen

	seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
       /                               \
ihnp4!              unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
       \                               /
        chinet! ---------------------/        (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"