On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:49:23AM +0200, Stefan 'Kaishakunin' Schumacher wrote:
> Also sprach Ben Collver (collver@peak.org)
> > I don't think dump counts as an archiver.  
> 
> What is it than?

I would call dump a non-portable backup tool.

Typically, one would expect an archiver to make portable archives.  For
example, if I make a tar archive on a Macintosh, I should be able to
extract it on a Linux or BSD system.  That doesn't mean one could not
port the restore program to Windows and read a dump backup, but AFAIK it
has not been done.

> > It only works with ffs/lfs,
> > and the manual states that it only works reliably on an unmounted
> > filesystem.
> 
> dump is also the most reliable archiver on mounted filesystem, it is
> really hard to get a non-working dump. That's nothing one could say
> about tar/pax/cpio. If one has to archive an active filesystem, fss(4) 
> should be used. 

I used dump for a few years and have seen my share of errors with that
program.  But the errors were all at backup time, not at restore time.
For example, once or twice I experienced the backup just hang there and
I had to kill dump.  (Not that pax is treating me better, but at least
it meets the requirements that I back up non-FFS filesystems, and can
restore to a different system than I made the backup on.)

Reading the fss(4) man page, I see
"This driver is experimental.  Be sure you have a backup before you use it."

Seems chicken and egg to me!

Ben