On Thursday 03 July 2003 18:03, bao wrote:
>Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
>>On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 at 4:20pm, Michael D. Schleif wrote
>>
>>>Am I right that amrecover is useless *without* an index?
>>
>>Yep.
>
>No argument about it.
>But, I don't keep index files along with the backup image on tape.
>Before running amrecover,
>I would run a script to extract and recreate the index files and use
>them to run amrecover.
>Are there any drawbacks to that scheme ???

Yes.  If the indices do make it into the backup tape (I've had it 
miss-fire here and have taken other means to assure I have an up2date 
backup of them on the same tape here), they will still be a day old 
compared to the tapes actual contents.

>>>Also, using only amrestore, is it possible to get at individual
>>>files/directories, or is it only a matter of restoring the entire
>>>dump/tarball?
>>
>>Yes, depending.  If you use dump, you can usually pipe amrestore to
>>'restore -i', the interactive restore, which will let you pick and
>> choose. If you use tar, you can do a 'tar t' to get a table of
>> contents, and then 'tar x myfile ./mydir/myfile2' to get 
>> particular files.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.26% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.