Re: tar incremental backups confusion

From: Stuart McGraw (smcg4191_at_frii.RemoveThisToReply.com)
Date: 02/09/04 

Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:13:42 -0700

Thanks, Alan. I am looking into that. But my puzzelment
is that the doc and a zillion usenet posting all say that -g
is good and should be used, but as fas as I can tell, it is
inferior the the "old" -G option, at least when it comes to
a bare metal restore. I would like to think that a zillion
people and the docs are wrong, and I am right, but...
So I am still hoping for a more comprehensive explanation.

Maybe linux users never have to do bare metal restores?
Or maybe those that have are now using something other
than tar?

"alan" <alan@datax.com> wrote in message news:16d89cf9.0402090124.27b226f0@posting.google.com...
> smcg4191@frii.com (smcgraw) wrote in message news:<787dc18c.0402071941.51c6719c@posting.google.com>...
> > I am trying to understand how to use GNU tar's --listed-incremental
> > (aka -g) option, and am getting very confused.
> >
> > If I use the -g option on an incremental backup and I then
> > later want to do a restore without getting any extra previously
> > deleted files, I need to give tar the -g option with the same
> > snapshot file that the original incremental backup created,
> > yes?
> >
> > But if my disk was wiped that file is gone! Since it is (I
> > think) created after the incremental backup, I can't include it
> > in the tar file, I have to write a second tar file to backup
> > the incremental's snapshot file? (Or append, or update the
> > incremental tar file?) I looked at a few backup scripts found
> > on the net and none seem to do this. Why not?
> >
> > Now if I need to restore, I have to read past the incremental
> > tar file on the tape, restore the snapshot file, move back over
> > the incremental tar file, then do the incremental restore? This
> > is pretty cumbersome, isn't it?
> >
> > The -G (--incremental) option will write a snapshot file as
> > part of the tar file. So no other file is needed at restore time?
> > Does it make sense to use both -g and -G on a backup? If so
> > why does the manual say that -g has superceeded -G and -G is not
> > recommended?
> >
> > I am very confused....
> > What is best way to do an incremental backup that can be restored
> > using *only* the data on the tapes?
>
> you probably need to investigate the --newer-mtime option instead.
>
> A

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Backup to tape with tar
    ... and will it restore the correct permissions of the ... Preserving permissions actually happens in the restoration step. ... will create a large tar file in the /dev directory. ...
    (Fedora)
  • tar incremental backups confusion
    ... If I use the -g option on an incremental backup and I then ... snapshot file that the original incremental backup created, ... in the tar file, I have to write a second tar file to backup ... Now if I need to restore, I have to read past the incremental ...
    (comp.os.linux)
  • Re: tar incremental backups confusion
    ... > later want to do a restore without getting any extra previously ... > snapshot file that the original incremental backup created, ... > in the tar file, I have to write a second tar file to backup ...
    (comp.os.linux)
  • Re: SUSE Repair
    ... It suggested I create a backup name ... >>morning and it could not restore. ... > The /etc directory has all your config files in it and would be very ... > It would help if you told us exactly how you created the tar file, ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: SUSE Repair
    ... The /etc directory has all your config files in it and would be very ... It would help if you told us exactly how you created the tar file, ... how, exactly, you tried to do the restore. ... Post details. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)