Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Generic Problem with BSD dump/restore
Message-ID: <1570@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Nov-86 18:13:32 EST
Article-I.D.: oddjob.1570
Posted: Thu Nov 20 18:13:32 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Nov-86 05:22:38 EST
References: <992@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> <1307@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 18

John Gilmore asks the burning question:
>
>   *	Why did restore complain about a few files, when the dumps were
>	both taken on quiescent, fsck'd file systems?

Fsck doesn't read the data blocks, so those may have had errors
which caused dump to skip them.

I also have noticed that it takes semi-infinite time to do an
incremental restore.  Why *is* this so?  Was the dump/restore
system optimized to speed up the more common dump at the expense
of the less common restore operation?
_____________________________________________________
Matt		University	crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford	of Chicago	ihnp4!oddjob!matt

..If I had heart failure right now, I couldn't be a more
fortunate man!!