[CentOS] tar vs. star vs. something-else-I-don-t-know-about
Fabian Arrotin
fabian.arrotin at arrfab.netThu Nov 16 10:28:00 UTC 2006
- Previous message: [CentOS] tar vs. star vs. something-else-I-don-t-know-about
- Next message: [CentOS] tar vs. star vs. something-else-I-don-t-know-about
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
><snip> >> One is tar, and second is star. > > Tar is the one you'll likely run into the most. Star is similar to > tar, but has ACL support, so if you're using extended ACL support > (requires a mount option to the file system) you get to keep all the > fine grained permissions. This applies to about 1% of the user > population*. > > * This statistic was yanked directly from the southern orifice and > should not in any way be considered accurate > I have a bunch of Samba servers that need the ACL option to simulate a Windows server behaviour but i still use Tar for the backups. I just save my ACL with getfacl in a file prior to the tar itself. In such case i know that i'll be able to restore both file and ACLs even on a system that has only tar and not star .... ****************************************** * Fabian Arrotin - http://www.arrfab.net * ******************************************
- Previous message: [CentOS] tar vs. star vs. something-else-I-don-t-know-about
- Next message: [CentOS] tar vs. star vs. something-else-I-don-t-know-about
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list