Paul Crowley (
ciphergoth) wrote2002-07-08 02:59 pm
How shall I do backups?
OK, I've used DAR long enough to know that it's fundamentally broken. I just gave up on it at the point where I'd written CD 1 of a two CD archive, and said "please test the integrity of this slice of the archive". It responded "last slice is not present, please provide before integrity can be tested".
So I'm not using that any more.
What the hell can I use that does proper multi-archive backups for CDs?
So I'm not using that any more.
What the hell can I use that does proper multi-archive backups for CDs?
no subject
no subject
no subject
If you do have some idea's it'd be good to share.
I've been thinking about decent backup software for the past few days - partly inspired by your difficulty in finding something, and partly as a result of not finding a good network backup tool.
Currently I'm using a tape drive and rsync. IT doesn't scale well and gets intricate when you've got N hosts - contention is a real problem. I don't believe I could restore any single file easily; the tape drive is in use pretty much 100% of the day :(
OK half the problem is host N copies to drive; then N+1; then we wait for tape change. I guess I should be getting all the hosts to copy to "server" then dump that to the drive - problem is $server doesn't have the diskspace for the complete contents of a tape :(
no subject
time for dvd-r maybe?
no subject
But they both run on DOS...
no subject
no subject
Still, for some people, working is a low priority. I should know...
no subject
comment from DAR's author
(Anonymous) 2002-07-08 10:28 am (UTC)(link)for information, DAR does the test of a *whole* archive. After the "long enough time you've spent", I don't know where you have seen that it can make the testing of a single slice (this is a non sense as a given file inside the archive could be split between two or more slices, and CRC is computed file by file). As usual, dar starts by the first slice, then it needs the last.
OK, I Promise, if I find again (by mistake of course) one of your feedback, I will not reply to it :-)
Denis Corbin.
Re: comment from DAR's author
Nothing wrong with file-by-file checksums, but you might as well waste 128 bits per CD and do a chunk-by-chunk checksum too to make the user's life easier.
Re: comment from DAR's author
(Anonymous) 2002-07-08 02:10 pm (UTC)(link)For me it is just a simple feature to add, not really the "mistake at the very deepest level of its design" I 've read previously. 8^D
Anyway, thanks for feedback.
Denis Corbin.
Re: comment from DAR's author
I thought you CRC'd each file separately, no?
Re: comment from DAR's author
I'll write up my thoughts on what I think the ideal backup utility would look like at some point but I tend to think that while it can be nice to write to authors to say "here, your program can be improved like this", there's not a lot of point in saying "your program has a mistake at the very deepest level of its design" because there's not a lot they can do about it...
Still I will write it and send it to you. Once I've got speech recognition going. Once I've reinstalled windows. Once I've backed up the laptop... you see my problem...
DAR is still the best there is - if I want something better, me and