On Friday 10 February 2006 13:40, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 at 1:22pm, Gene Heskett wrote
>
>> On Friday 10 February 2006 11:42, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote:
>>> tar:
>>> CentSO  tar-1.14-8.RHEL4         FC4   tar-1.15.1-11.FC4
>>
>> CentOS tar-1.14.* is known bad, I'm using 1.15-1 myself, with
>> 1.13-25 installed as a fallback available with a rebuild/reinstall
>> of amanda, a 6 minute job typically...
>
>Actually, centos-4's tar seems to work just fine.  They recently fixed
> a sparse files bug in it, and it seems quite happy.  I've recently
> done a few multi-TB backup/restores with it with no problem.
>
>Or is there something I'm missing?

Theres a difference in the contents of the header of its output files.  
OTIH, maybe it can recover with then in place, but other tars cannot.  
I haven't personally tried to confirm that.

Compare their output list when asked for a table of contents of the 
backup.  I think you'll see the difference as 1.14 will have a double 
sized string of numbers prepended to the filename it outputs.  Or at 
least it did here, and several others also reported problems with it.

The one thing I was surprised is that tar development is usually rather 
glacier like, but 1.14 only lasted a few weeks on the gnu.org ftp site.  
Something HAD to prompt that knee jerk reaction pace other than global 
warming. :-)

>As to centos vs. FC, I prefer centos if only for the longer life cycle
> and the feeling that it's a bit more tested than FC.  That being
> said, I've never run FC, so take that all with a grain of salt.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.