Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!adt.UUCP!madd
From: madd@adt.UUCP (jim frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: Summary of Re: Experiences with 4D/2xx as timesharing systems?
Message-ID: <8904131500.AA20088@adt.uucp>
Date: 13 Apr 89 15:00:28 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26

>> 'tar' is not a backup program, no matter who thinks so.
>
>Nothing that goes through the filesystem (tar, cpio, bru) is an acceptable
>backup program in a large installation.

That's not so.  It is possible (even pretty easy) to build a very
good, very reliable backup program which works through the filesystem.
Most of the information which is saved by dump can be gotten through
the filesystem; I personally believe that the information which cannot
be gotten is also unnecessary.  The programs you mentioned are not
acceptable because they provide little (if any) redundancy or
error-recovery; if anything goes wrong with any part of them, you
probably lost the whole backup or you'll be bit-fiddling to get the
information that remains.

I'm a bit surprised that no one has built The Better Backup Program
yet.  I expect that what will happen is one of these days I'm going to
get fed up with dump and just build one.  It almost happened once.

Anyone who has any comments or ideas on what a backup program
must/should have is encouraged to send them to me at
madd@bu-cs.bu.edu; if "one of these days" becomes a reality they will
be very useful.

jim frost
madd@bu-it.bu.edu